170 thoughts on ““The Kingdom of Earth is at Hand””

1. Tim, this is the point, and you emphazize it clearly in another necessary article. Roman Catholicism postures itself as Jesus Christ on Earth. And this earthly Jesus has its visible head. But we know that the church is NOT the same as Jesus in the world. The true Christ rules his kingdom from heaven, and will judge harshly the earthly kingdom who tried to steal His glory in his return. I enjoyed this article. Thanks Tim.

   Reply

   1. Tim said ” Unfortunately, in defense of their religion, Roman Catholics have confused the latter for the former , they have confused dominion over an earthly kingdom with posession of a heavenly one” Tim, Im not sure they know Tim . 2 Thessalonians 2:11 says they are deluded. This is why your whole ministry to draw these distinctions puts the question to them directly and clearly . And this is the key, because as you have so aptly said, God’s elect will come out of Roman Catholicism. But we should never underestimate how much Catholics love their church and its doctrines. They are trusting their church, not the Savior, to save them. The big trap for Catholics is the notion that their is no salvation outside of Rome. Only those who know churches dont connect us to God but He comes to us in the gospel will be able to overcome the guilt imposed by antichrist that says you cant be saved outside this church. Baptism is the hook, they have them. K

      Reply

   2. TIM–
      You said: “When His disciples asked him if He would ‘at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6), Jesus responded that the time for establishing an Earthly Kingdom was not theirs to know, and instead of seeking to establish an Earthly Kingdom, they should focus rather on the preaching of a Heavenly one:’It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.’ (Acts 1:7-9)”

      Let’s see if your exegesis is correct. Here’s what the bible actually says:
      Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
      7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
      8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

      Nowhere there does Jesus distinguish between earthly and heavenly kingdoms. The disciples specifically asked Him about Israel. And, as it happens, the kingdom has not been restored to Israel, and it won’t be until the fullness of the gentiles comes in. (Rom 11.25)

      But the apostle Peter wrote about who the kingdom is:
      1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
      10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
      Peter was teaching from:
      Exo 19:5 ‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
      6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”
      Peter was given the keys to this kingdom of priests so that anything bound on earth is bound in heaven. And we, as members of the Kingdom, pray “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

      Granted, the Kingdom is not completed. We are still a work in progress. Our King is ruling from heaven, but the Kingdom is here on earth and we it’s earthly ambassadors. And because we are here, the world is changing.

      Reply

      1. Sorry, Bob. I cannot find the part where you prove that my exegesis is wrong. You appear to be arguing against the position that “the kingdom of heaven is only to be preached in heaven and not on earth,” something I did not propose.

         Can you help me understand where my exegesis is actually wrong?

         Thanks,

         Tim

         Reply

         1. TIM–
            You said: “Sorry, Bob. I cannot find the part where you prove that my exegesis is wrong. You appear to be arguing against the position that “the kingdom of heaven is only to be preached in heaven and not on earth,” something I did not propose.”

            Not just preaching.
            You said once before that you believed in apostolic succession. Do you not believe the authority and power of the keys(Is 22:20-22) in the binding and loosing given to the apostles was passed on as well? That is a judicial power authorized by Christ given to living men on earth. How and when did you think that ended?

            Reply

            1. Bob, do you believe that judicial power of the keys was over civil authority? How and when do you think that began?

            2. Tim–
               You asked: “Bob, do you believe that judicial power of the keys was over civil authority? How and when do you think that began?”

               Answer a question with a question. Ok, I’ll play.

               Do you equate “earthly” with “civil”? I don’t. The earthly Kingdom of God is the Church established by Christ when he gave the power of the keys to Peter specifically and power of binding and loosing generally to the apostles. This power originates in heaven and manifests itself on earth through the Church. It is a Kingdom of grace and peace.
               The Church has no secular “civil” jurisdiction. The only influence the Church has on secular civil affairs is the members of the civil government that happen to be also members of the Church. Secular civil governments are kingdoms of law and punishment.

               The medieval Roman Catholic Magisterium had no authority to wield the sword as you claim it did. Priests and bishops were not law enforcement officers nor were they soldiers. It was the secular civil authorities who did that. They just happened to be Catholic. And the same for the Protestants. It was the secular civil authorities that happened to be Protestant that wielded the sword, not the ministers and elders of the Church.
               If wielding the sword is your evidence that the Roman Papacy is the Anti-Christ, then the Reformed are just as guilty.

            3. Thank you, Bob. That is why I asked. I have for a long time talked about the fact that there is no visible chief shepherd on earth, and no earthly chief metropolis. You cited 1 Peter 2:9-10 to prove the the Kingdom of God is Earthly, yet there is some value, I think, in verse 11 in which Peter states that we are “strangers and pilgrims” here. Why strangers and pilgrims if the Kingdom of God is on Earth? Rather, it is in Heaven, where our citizenship is:

               “For our conversation [politeuma] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20)

               Politeuma means “state, commonwealth, administration of civil affairs.” Our citizenship is not of earth, because God’s Kingdom is not of earth. It is from above. As Jesus said, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23).

               As I have pointed out elsewhere, the subapostolic church recognized this to be true, as exemplified by the observations of Mathetes in the 2nd century. He insisted, with Peter, that Christians are in the world, but have no earthly government or civil administration or citizenship, but are as strangers and pilgrims here:

               “But inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. [2 Corinthians 10:3] They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. [Philippians 3:20] They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 5).

               “To sum up all in one word— what the soul is in the body, Christians are in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 6)

               For three hundred years after the apostles, that is how the Church looked upon itself. Late in the 4th century various bishops around the empire were mortified that the Priscillians had been executed after a civil trial. But that indignation would soon pass, for a new order was coming:

               “The existence of the State Church made a profound difference in the political and social development of the Empire. The old State religion of Rome was often used as an instrument of policy, but perhaps its main political value was symbolic. It involved no theory of the universe, no body of dogma to divide the minds of men and engender disputes. The gods were not jealous, and it was compatible with the utmost variety of other cults and faiths. For the Christian Church, on the contrary, a right belief in theological dogmas was the breath of its life, and, as such questions are abstruse and metaphysical, it was impossible to define a uniform doctrine which all minds would accept. As the necessity of ecclesiastical unity was an axiom, the government had to deal with a new problem, and a very arduous and embarrassing one, such as had not confronted it in the days before Constantine. Doctrine had to be defined, and heretics suppressed. Again, the Church, which once had claimed freedom for itself, denied freedom to others when it was victorious, and would not suffer rival cults. Hence a systematic policy of religious intolerance, such as the Greek and Roman world had never known, was introduced. Another consequence of the Christianising of the State was the rise to power and importance of the institution of monasticism, which was not only influential economically and socially, but was also, as we shall see, a political force.” (Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, chapter XI)

               At the end of the 4th century, that political force came to full bloom, and Augustine himself, who had once insisted that truth must be advanced by the foolishness of preaching, began to realize the value of corporal punishment. A heavenly kingdom? That was back then. This is now:

               “Truly, if past events recorded in the prophetic books were figures of the future, there was given under King Nebuchadnezzar a figure both of the time which the Church had under the apostles, and of that which she has now. In the age of the apostles and martyrs, that was fulfilled which was prefigured when the aforesaid king compelled pious and just men to bow down to his image, and cast into the flames all who refused. Now, however, is fulfilled that which was prefigured soon after in the same king, when, being converted to the worship of the true God, he made a decree throughout his empire, that whosoever should speak against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, should suffer the penalty which their crime deserved. The earlier time of that king represented the former age of emperors who did not believe in Christ, at whose hands the Christians suffered because of the wicked; but the later time of that king represented the age of the successors to the imperial throne, now believing in Christ, at whose hands the wicked suffer because of the Christians.” (Augustine, Letter 93, To Vincentius, paragraph 9)

               And the Augustinian consensus was born. You wrote,

               “Secular civil governments are kingdoms of law and punishment.”

               I agree. That is why I say that Roman Catholicism was just next pagan empire in a succession of empires, the Fifth Empire.

               Thanks,

               Tim

            4. TIM–

               You said: “Secular civil governments are kingdoms of law and punishment.”
               I agree. That is why I say that Roman Catholicism was just next pagan empire in a succession of empires, the Fifth Empire.”

               I disagree with your conclusion. The Roman Magisterium never had secular civil jurisdiction to perform capital punishment. They could only define heresy and excommunicate heretics. It was the civil governments that enacted laws against heresy with remedies of capital punishment, not the Church.

               Tim, if you want to label your pagan “Fifth Empire”, label it with the time of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) and the Holy Roman Empire–the kings of mediaeval Eurasia after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire(which began with Constantine) ended in 1453 AD, conquered by the Ottoman Turks. The Holy Roman Empire ended in 1806 with Napoleon Bonaparte. Start it in the Ten Year Winter of 536-546:
               “And it came about during this year that a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during this whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed”.
               – Procopius (Wars, 4.14.5)
               and described as “the world was turned upside down by a winter that witnesses say “never ended.”
               Scholars writing in Europe and Asia at the time reported that the year 536 and the years following were bitterly cold. They described conditions that reminded them of an eclipse, and claim that the sun remained “small,” with ice frosting up crops even in summer. That year and the decade following were also times of great famine, plague and war.”
               With the Ten Year Winter ending in 546 AD, 1260 years later is 1806–the year the last fragmented remnants of the great secular civil Roman Empire ended.

               In a historist perspective, it seems like it fits to me. But who am I to the Fool on the Hill but just a troll, right?

            5. Bob, the event you describe was not the beginning of the fifth empire, but the fulfillment of the fourth trumpet:

               “And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.” (Revelation 8:12)

               Thanks,

               Tim

            6. TIM–
               You said: “Bob, the event you describe was not the beginning of the fifth empire, but the fulfillment of the fourth trumpet”

               Ok. But the fourth trumpet coincides with your so called “fifth empire” which is never mentioned in scripture. Daniel only describes four beasts. So your “fifth empire” is only a continuation of the fourth beast.
               And the Byzantine Empire, a continuation of the Roman Empire, includes portions of the three previous empires geographically–Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Hellenist Greece. This secular civil empire did not end with your “rise of Roman Catholicism” in the fourth century. It ended with the Turks in the fifteenth century.

            7. And to finish what was left of the fractured remnants of the Roman Empire, here is this from (sorry, Walt) Wikipedia :
               The precise term “Holy Roman Empire” was not used until the 13th century, but the concept of translatio imperii[e] was fundamental to the prestige of the emperor, the notion that he held supreme power inherited from the emperors of Rome. The office of Holy Roman Emperor was traditionally elective, although frequently controlled by dynasties. The German prince-electors, the highest ranking noblemen of the empire, usually elected one of their peers as “King of the Romans”, and he would later be crowned emperor by the Pope; the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century. The empire never achieved the extent of political unification formed in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units, principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains.(which is considered “dominion”) The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, and kings of the empire were vassals and subjects who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto sovereignty within their territories. Emperor Francis II dissolved the empire on 6 August 1806, after its defeat by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz.

               Again, the Church’s jurisdiction was and still is ecclesiastical and not secular–“in” the world but not “of” the world. ” Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” –Mat 16:19 and 18:18.

               But abuses of power on both Church and State abounded during this time to blur the line between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction. It finally came to a head with:
               “The Investiture Controversy or Investiture Contest was the most significant conflict between Church and state in medieval Europe. In the 11th and 12th centuries, a series of popes challenged the authority of European monarchies. The issue was whether the pope or the monarch would name (invest) powerful local church officials such as bishops of cities and abbots of monasteries. The conflict ended in 1122, when Emperor Henry V and Pope Calixtus II agreed on the Concordat of Worms. It differentiated between the royal and spiritual powers and gave the emperors a limited role in selecting bishops. The outcome seemed mostly a victory for the pope and his claim that he was God’s chief representative in the world. However, the Emperor did retain considerable power over his Church.”

               This longstanding struggle between the Emperor and the Church could be described as “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.”

2. Tim,

   You wrote:

   “When taken together, Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, with Revelation 13, portray a time after Christ’s first advent, but before His second, when Antichrist rules over an earthly kingdom. During that time it is Antichrist alone who takes possession of an Earthly Kingdom. The Church of Christ does not. Only Antichrist possesses such dominion.”

   I suspect, although I need to read it again to be certain of what you are saying, that here we may find our “key” differences between your eschatology and the reformers. Certainly, I find much merit in your interpretations of Daniel, and the how you lay out Daniel 11, and perhaps pinpoint the start of the 1260 year period of Antichrist reign and rule.

   However, after reading today’s article, it seems to me that you are taken each verse too literally and not figuratively. If you believe that Christ’s earthly reign is only in heaven, and that Antichrist reigns on earth, than I suspect this would be similar to dispensationalists who apply earthly reign to Israel.

   “According to dispensationalists, God has two distinct bodies of people with whom he is working: Israel and the church. There is a separate plan for each of these two peoples. Israel is said to be an earthly people, while the church represents a heavenly body. National Israel’s expectation is an earthly kingdom; the church’s hope is eternal bliss in heaven. While the church realized her goal through belief in the finished work of Christ on the cross, Israel’s goal will finally be realized through legal obedience.”

   http://graceonlinelibrary.org/eschatology/dispensationalism/dispensationalist-beliefs-israel-and-the-kingdom-of-god-by-william-e-cox/

   If you substitute the Romish Antichrist instead of Israel, then you have really come up with a brand new twist on dispensationalism. They take everything in scripture literally.

   A couple observations I would have is as follows:

   1) You don’t really see Christ ruling and reigning on earth today as King of kings and Lord of lords, nor do you see Christ as ruling from heaven with the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit.

   2) The reformation was a glimpse of Christ’s NON-BODILY reign on earth. We see many “comings” of Christ in judgement upon this earth, and they are all non-bodily comings of Christ ruling and reigning from heaven. It seems like you only see one “coming” of Christ to rule and reign on earth, and that is His only second coming to rule and reign. Do you see Him coming only “bodily” with a rod of Iron at His second coming?

   3) This now makes sense to me why you would celebrate Christmas, Easter and other Roman Catholic inspired holy days since the distinction between a faithful remnant that Christ is currently ruling and reigning on earth with the Holy Spirit is not existent until he “bodily” returns to rule and reign. I assume you view the reformation, and the alleged “high water mark” period of the Church of Scotland (National Covenant) during first reformation, and the Solemn League and Covenant between England, Ireland and Scotland (second reformation) as having little to do with Christ’s reign on earth through His remnant to establish both church and state as a “nice try” but failure since Christ was not here “bodily” to rule and reign with a rod of iron?

   While I don’t have any third party opinion yet on today’s article, I suspect (if I am interpreting you correctly) that this will be article that clearly separates your views from the reformers and places you firmly in the camp of a new twist on futurism and dispensationalism that involves Rome ruling earth as Anitchrist rather than Israel ruling earth under a future Antichrist.

   I think I’m now beginning to see where this might be headed after the 1260 years have been fulfilled, and I suspect I did not see it before that others might have seen more clearly trying to help me understand “the big picture” in defining what is a literally meaning vs. a figurative meaning, and how it is possible that it will be more clearly revealed as we get into future fulfillment of your prophetical interpretation.

   This “gap theory” (my words) on the rule and reign of Christ is really interesting. It definitely goes against almost everything the reformers taught in terms of why they got so intimately involved in both church and state governments, and provided litmus tests to those who joined Christian government, the military and especially the church ministry. They did not put in place all this extensive reformation work thinking Christ only ruled heaven, and not earth. They died for the belief that God was ruling earth as Prophet, Priest and King, and Antichrist was usurping the power given to Christ TODAY, not in the future when He bodily returns.

   Dispensationalists and futurists are waiting for this “coming” of Christ to rule and reign on earth with a rod of iron, and I suspect now I see you are as well. It makes sense why the reformers and reformation is really not anything to so many as a bunch of guys just protesting in ignorance, and not understanding that until Christ returns bodily He has no authority to rule and reign the earth with His Vicar of Christ, and the elect Saints on earth.

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Walt.

      You posted a lot yesterday, and I would like to listen to some of the audio you provided. I’ll have to respond in parts.

      I do not fully understand your statement that I have “taken each verse too literally and not figuratively.” In my exposition of Daniel 2, 7 and Revelation 12 and 13, I have understood the figures as expounded by the angelic narrators to represent logical propositional statements that can be understood, and those logical propositions have to be provided to us before we can understand the figures, and I believe the logical propositions can be understood by us. I do not believe Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was literally made out of gold, and I do not believe Alexander’s kingdom was literally a four-headed leopard. So I am not sure I understand the part of your critique where you say I have taken each verse too literally.

      The chapters under discussion are all figurative and symbolic, and I do not believe we can understand the figure and the symbol unless it is explained to us and is logically and coherently attached to a proposition. Nebuchadnezzar could not understand the figure of a head of gold—and neither can I—until a logical proposition is attached to it. “This image’s head was of fine gold” I cannot understand, and neither could Nebuchadnezzar, nor even Daniel until a logical proposition is attached to it. Daniel was not merely given Nebuchadnezzar’s dream but also the interpretation, and the interpretation was given to him in logical propositions. “Thou art this head of gold” I can understand. Until a logical proposition is attached to it, the figure makes no sense. I do not believe Nebuchadnezzar was literally a head of gold, but I do believe that the figure of the head of gold was intended to signify Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, literally.

      That said, I do not understand your reference to dispensationalism, but I’ll try to address at least this part:

      “If you believe that Christ’s earthly reign is only in heaven, and that Antichrist reigns on earth, than I suspect this would be similar to dispensationalists who apply earthly reign to Israel.”

      When I say Christ reigns in heaven, I mean He reigns over all. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof (Psalms 24:1). When I say Christ does not reign on earth, I mean I do not believe Jesus has established a civil government here. I mean precisely what Jesus meant when He said exactly the same thing. Consider the logical implication of these three verses. The first indicates that Jesus could call upon His Father’s heavenly armies, but that he has no earthly armies to call upon; the third indicates that Jesus would not call upon armies of this world:

      ” Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:5-53)

      “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23)

      “Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:35-36)

      Later, we read in Hebrews 2:8 that “we see not yet all things put under him”:

      “‘Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ [Psalms 8:6] For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.” (Hebrews 2:8)

      And then in 1 Corinthians,

      “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. [Psalms 8:6] But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:23-28)

      I believe that the Scriptures do not contradict, and I believe they are perspicuous. Therefore I do not believe there is a contradiction in saying that God hath placed all things under His feet, and yet “we see not yet all things put under him”. The reason we do not see all things under him is that there are yet earthly kings, princes, rulers, presidents and prime ministers, and at some point, Jesus will return and “put down all rule and all authority and power,” and “when all things shall be subdued unto him”. In fact, from Daniel 7:26 and Revelation 19:15 it is clear that Jesus shall come and “shall take away his dominion” (Daniel 7:26) and “smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15). Since the author of Hebrews acknowledges that at the time of his writing that had not happened, and John and Paul both place that at His coming, I do not understand the concern you have expressed—namely,

      “1) You don’t really see Christ ruling and reigning on earth today as King of kings and Lord of lords, nor do you see Christ as ruling from heaven with the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit.”

      God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11), but according to His will, “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 17:17), “and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Revelation 13:7), and sometime later, Jesus will come with His armies from Heaven and “put down all rule and all authority and power.” I find it significant that Jesus said during His earthly ministry that if he had an earthly kingdom, his servants would fight, but that he could, if he wanted, call upon the legions of angels from Heaven, for that is where His kingdom is. Then at the end, it is Heavenly armies, not earthly ones, that follow him to make war against the Beast and his armies. Even to the end, His kingdom is heavenly, and so are his armies. He currently has no earthly civil government, and I would be shocked to find there are Christians who think He does.

      I read your citations from Greg Price’s sermon, “What is a Christian Nation?”, but he seems only to address the fact that Jesus is the Lord of the Universe and that the ministry of the saints and preaching of the gospel can and do have a sanctifying effect on the governments and people of this world. In short, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). That does not, in my opinion, prove that Jesus has Himself at any time since His first advent presided over a civil government on earth, nor do I think pastor Price is even denying anything I have said. He said, Jesus’s reign “does come TO this world and brings life, righteousness, and peace through the power of the God’s Spirit and through the Gospel of Jesus Christ“, which is simply another way of saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is preached on earth and has a sanctifying effect. It certainly is and does, since the gospel is “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” I think you may be misreading my statement that “Jesus does not have an Earthly Kingdom” to mean that Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with this world, is not in control of it, is not sovereign over it, and the preaching of His Gospel can have no effect upon it. I have not said that. You continued,

      “2) The reformation was a glimpse of Christ’s NON-BODILY reign on earth.”

      I do not know how you can say that immediately after criticizing me for suggesting that “Christ’s earthly reign is only in heaven, and that Antichrist reigns on earth,” and after quoting (with emphasis) Pastor price who said, “Therefore, the redeeming power of Christ and His heavenly kingdom must and does bring peace not only to individuals and to families, but also brings peace to nations and their civil leaders (as official representatives of the nations).” If the redeeming power of Christ “must and does” have an effect on the civil governments, why do we not glimpse His Earthly Kingdom until the Reformation? Or, if you are saying (and I don’t know if you are) that Jesus was reigning neither bodily nor non-bodily on earth until the Reformation, is that not the same as saying that He had no earthly kingdom for at least 1400 years? Or if He was reigning non-bodily before the Reformation, why do we not see so much as a glimpse of it?

      In any case, I believe some of the Reformers truly thought they were bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth through the exercise of civil authority, and I believe they were wrong to think so, just as I believe the late 4th century church was wrong to wield the sword against “heretics,” and even just against people with different opinions. The early church recognized that it was not their place to imprison, torture and kill heretics, but toward the end of the 4th century that changed because many began to believe that the Kingdom of Heaven had come to earth through the exercise of civil authority. The Reformers bought into that, and initially took up the “Augustinian Consensus,” only to abandon it later when they realized that they, too, were wrong on that point. I watched the video on John Knox that you provided earlier, and I seem to recall that John Knox experienced frustration (and maybe depression) when his efforts to establish an earthly kingdom were not realized. His frustration, I believe, was due in no small part to the historical tendency to see the Stone striking the feet of the Nebuchadnezzar’s statue and filling the whole earth as a prophecy of the Church’s earthly dominion prior to the return of Christ, or seeing the saints taking possession of a Kingdom after the 4th beast (Daniel 7:18) as a reference to an earthly kingdom.

      As I have written elsewhere, I think that is a misreading of the text. As I showed in The Fifth Empire, the confusion dates all the way back to the Early Church and manifests because the strike of the Stone (Daniel 2:34-35) is interpreted as a single strike during the Roman Empire, and thus the stone growing and filling “the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35) is taken to refer to God “set[ting] up a[n earthly] kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44) during the Roman Empire. By missing the fact that there are two judicial movements depicted in Daniel 2:34-35, it makes Daniel 2 suggest an earthly kingdom immediately following the Roman Empire, which is precisely the Roman Catholic argument. I cannot simply defer to the Roman Catholic or early or late reformed position on Daniel 2, because I believe they have missed something significant in the text. It will not do simply to reject my arguments by appealing to the reformers when I am in fact criticizing the reformers for missing something in their interpretation. What they missed, I believe, is that Daniel 2:34-35 depicts two strikes of the stone, which its language plainly suggests, and which becomes apparent in the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7. As I showed in The Fifth Empire, the writers of the early church held diverse opinions on this (i.e., the stone refers to Jesus’ first advent and it is a judgment against Rome, the stone refers to Jesus’ second advent and is a judgment against Antichrist, etc…) because they did not harmonize Daniel 2 and 7. Along those lines, instead of responding with ad hominem arguments (ie., “you’re a dispensationalist and you celebrate Roman Catholic inspired holy days”), why not simply interact with me on the text?

      Let’s assume that the Gold, Silver and Brass of Daniel 2 correspond to the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard of Daniel 7. Let’s also assume that the body of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 corresponds to the legs and feet of the statue of Daniel 2, and the horns correspond to the toes. In Daniel 2, the stone strikes neither the legs nor the toes, but the feet, and does not affect the other empires. In Daniel 7, there is a judgment upon the body of the fourth beast, but the lives of the preceding empires are prolonged. John has a Roman antichrist as the embodiment of the the three preceding empires, and clearly the Little Horn outlives the body of the Fourth Beast and lives long enough to gather the armies of the world for battle against the Lamb. As I have said, if the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard of Daniel 7 have their lives prolonged (Daniel 7:12), but at the strike of the stone in Daniel 2:35 “the brass, the silver, and the gold” are utterly destroyed such that no place is found for them, then there must be something between the first and second strike of the stone, and that something is the earthly reign of antichrist. Here is the chronological summary:

      Heavenly Kingdom of the Saints:
      “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 2:44a)
      “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever..” (Daniel 7:17-18)
      “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32)

      Judgment against the Roman Empire:
      “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 2:34)
      “I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame” (Daniel 7:11).

      Earthly Dominion of Antichrist:
      “As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” (Daniel 7:12)
      “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” (Revelation 13:2)
      “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 13:7)
      “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” (Revelation 17:12:-13).

      Judgment against Antichrist:
      “Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them:” (Daniel 2:35a)
      “…but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44b)
      “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” (Daniel 7:26)
      “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” (Revelation 17:14)
      “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations” (Revelation 19:15a).

      Earthly Dominion of Christ and His saints:
      “and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Daniel 2:35b)
      “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” (Daniel 7:27)
      “and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” (Revelation 19:15b)

      By this reading, a kingdom filling “the whole earth” and “the kingdom under the whole heaven” manifests not immediately after the Roman empire, but after Christ’s return, which appears to me to be consistent with Paul and the author of Hebrews, and therefore it is a mistake to seek an earthly civil reign of Christ and His people prior to that time. Paul and the author of Hebrews, after all, use the same verse (Psalms 8:6) to say not only that “now we see not yet all things put under him” but that we will not see that fulfilled until “the end” when “at his coming … he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” This appears to be consistent with Revelation 19, as well.

      What emerges from this is not an earthly reign of Christ’s people prior to Christ’s coming, but rather a heavenly kingdom of saints without civil authority colocated on earth with Antichrist who exercises civil authority. But that understanding does not emerge unless Daniel 2:34-35 are understood as two judicial movements, and those two judicial movements do not emerge unless Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 are harmonized under the assumption that they are God’s Word and therefore do not contradict each other. I don’t think the Early Church and Reformers harmonized them.

      So what say you, Walt? How do you harmonize Daniel 2 and 7. And I’ll just add that the tradition and courts of the Scottish church are not a source of revelation, and are not God’s Word, and therefore Daniel 2 and 7 do not need to be harmonized with Scottish tradition or the Scottish magisterium. Scottish tradition and the Scottish magisterium must bow the knee to the Word of God. As I have said elsewhere, your persistence in reconciling every interpretation with the Church of Scotland is simply to add Scottish Tradition and the Scottish Magisterium to the Word of God. The Scottish Magisterium can and does err, and to deny this is to invoke the infallibility of the Scottish Church, which is simply ecclesiolatry. I acknowledge the Scottish brethren as my brethren but not as a my pope.

      I’ll pick up more on this later, but for now you wrote,

      “We see many “comings” of Christ in judgement upon this earth, and they are all non-bodily comings of Christ ruling and reigning from heaven.”

      That is true, but in the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7, and 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews, and Revelation, we do not see an Earthly Reign of Christ with His saints until “his coming” in glory when He destroys the beast and his allies with His heavenly armies, not His earthly ones.

      You asked,

      “It seems like you only see one “coming” of Christ to rule and reign on earth, and that is His only second coming to rule and reign. Do you see Him coming only “bodily” with a rod of Iron at His second coming?”

      Yes, for that is what the Scriptures appear to say. Until then, “we see not yet all things put under him”. I’ll be happy to entertain countervailing opinions based on the Scriptures, but I do not bend the knee to the tradition and magisterium of Scotland.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim, I just re read this post to Walt. This is as sound an argument from scripture that I have read. The summation of the mistaken position of Rome and even the Reformers who missed 2 judicial movements and saw one strike that ushered in an earthly kingdom should shake all Christians if your theory is true. Do you understand the significance of this mistake on history and the church, and martyrdom. Immeasurable. That was a rhetorical question. These men mistakingly saw Christ’s kingdom as a reign thru civil authority against the perfect plan of God. It was according to His perfect will to use the sin of these men to ultimate good. What you are proposing from scripture calls many religious men to account in history. Simply amazing. K

         Reply

      2. Tim,
         Thx so much for your extensive replies. They make a lot of sense Scripturally. I particularly appreciate the way you try and keep things flowing logically. It actually reminds me of Dr Clark’s consistent repudiation of sensation as a source of knowledge. Your method and his are the same, deriving from the same axiom of “the Bible alone is the Word of God”. It has been SOOO helpful to see this axiom applied to eschatology in your essays.

         Reply

         1. Thanks, John. I am glad they are helpful to you.

            Tim

            Reply

            1. John,

               This message may not go through due to Tim being unwilling to allow me to expose his biblical errors, which is very common by many modern false prophets who don’t like to be chsllenged in the open light.

               If this message goes through, please contact me privately and I will show you two recent carefully documented analysys of Tim Kauffman prophecies. I personally believe Tim is part of a backslidden anti-biblical movement by Rome (Tim may not even know this yet) to teach others that the Antichrist is now ended and Rome is a good religious organization and the new Pope is no longer Antichrist, but the world’s great unifier of religion.

               Please don’t be led astray dear brother.

               Here is just one comment in our recent analysis about prophet Tim:

               “However, his views regarding magistracy are radically spiritualist for the present (it appears to me) with an odd premillennial kind of twist for an “earthly” future kingdom with Christ physically present on earth.”

               And here is another observation that you should learn for yourself as I think Tim is becoming more in line with SDA prophetess Ellen White.

               “The most glaring disagreement that I see with Tim’s response is that he presents either an Historical Premil position or an Historical Amill position–it is hard to tell from what Tim says below what he believes about the reign of Christ upon the earth after His Second Coming (as you know, I have addressed the problems with both the Premil and the Amil positions in a number of sermons from series that I have preached on eschatology in the past). Thus, let me simply summarize broadly the major events from an Historical Postmil position.”

               Please beware dear brother.

            2. Walt, you are under perpetual moderation for a reason, and this comment from you is an excellent illustration of it. You want to post a comment publicly offering to provide privately “two recent carefully documented analysys of Tim Kauffman prophecies” that have not even been provided to Tim Kauffman.

               Behold, the ungodliness the Church of Scotland has taught to Walt that he would offer privately to judge me without contacting me. You already have my personal address, Walt. Why would you not send your comments to me directly? Why have I not seen these two recent analyses of my “prophecies”? I have made no prophecies here, Walt. But you have.

               The sum of your criticism is that “it is hard to tell” what I believe (why not just ask?) and my teachings “appear” to be “radically spiritualist for the present” (in your opinion) and are pre-mill and suggest (gasp!) an earthly future kingdom with Christ physically present on earth and the saints reigning together with Him! (Where on earth would I get such an idea?)

               Rev. 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

               Rev. 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.Rev.

               Rev. 20:6 … they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

               Walt, you have spent years here trying to persuade me and people who read my material that I am simultaneously reading the scripture too literally and too spiritually. I once observed, “Does Jesus currently have an earthly kingdom?” No, He does not.” To which you responded,

               “Only if you spiritualize scripture and take every statement literal, and do not know how to interpret scripture with scripture.”

               Do I believe Christ established a heavenly kingdom? Yes. Do I believe he currently reigns on earth? No, I do not. Do I believe He will one day reign on earth physically? Yes, I do. When the Seventh angel sounds, “the kingdoms of this world … become the kingdoms of our Lord” (Revelation 11:15). No, Christ does not currently have an earthly kingdom. But one day He will. The Scriptures say as much. So how have you responded?

               “Your view that the kingdom of God is only spiritual and not physical is an error, and takes to extreme the literal interpretations of scripture and severely effects your ability to discern scripture rightly dividing the word of truth.”

               I’ve never actually said the Kingdom of God is only spiritual, Walt. I’ve only said that it’s only heavenly.

               What an odd assessment you have made to suggest that I have taken the “extreme literal interpretation of Scripture” and at the same that Tim Kauffman “spiritualizes Scripture”:

               “He is what we called in the true reformed community a spiritualist. He spiritualizes Scripture as I’ve shown in the past, but have had some of those texts blocked.” (Walt, February 25, 2018)

               Let’s face it, Walt. My real sin is that I disagree with your eschatology, and unable to mount a substantive or compelling rebuttal, you must accuse me of simultaneously spiritualizing the scripture AND taking it too literally.

               Since it your prophets who have prophesied that the 1,260 reign of antichrist will end in 2060 AD, you are the ones who have engaged in the error of Ellen G. White, not me. What is your judgment of me? “They love debate and controversy in setting prophetical dates, but cannot stand truth and unity.” (Walt, July 2, 2017) And yet, Walt, you are the one who is setting dates. Your prophets, like the Seventh Day Adventists have set 2060 AD as the date. And yet you accuse others of date setting.

               As I have said, if you have something to say to me privately, please do so. You have had my e-mail for a long time, Walt. Yet I have not received these “two recent carefully documented analysys of Tim Kauffman prophecies”. And yet from what you have said, those who have carefully analyzed my “prophecies” have not asked me and have not provided the analysis to me, and by their own words do not even know what I believe, and simultaneously accuse me of spiritualizing the Scriptures and taking them too literally.

               “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51).

               Tim

3. “There is considerable debate over the meaning of the expressions kingdom of Heaven and kingdom of God used in the Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament and the relationship of this kingdom to the church. The debate addresses three related questions. The first question concerns the nature of the kingdom. When used in the Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament, do these expressions refer metaphorically to a spiritual kingdom or literally to a physical, earthly kingdom, or to both? The second question, linked to the first, is whether the kingdom in view is presently in existence or is strictly in the future. The third question addresses the relationship between this kingdom and the church.

   The approach in answering these questions is, first, to determine whether the expressions kingdom of Heaven and kingdom of God are synonymous or whether they refer to distinct kingdoms. Next, the major views on the meaning of the two expressions are identified, along with the theological systems represented by each view. Following this, the key texts in the debate are examined. The study of the key texts is intentionally deductive. The underlying premise is that the expressions refer exclusively to the future millennial kingdom of Jesus as the promised Messiah. What must be determined is whether the evidence from the key texts supports the underlying premise. The discussion concludes by considering the relationship between the kingdom of Heaven/kingdom of God and the church.”

   http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/macp/2010/Compton,%20The%20Kingdom%20of%20Heaven,%20God%20and%20the%20Church.pdf

   Reply

4. Folks, let me share with you a very controversial subject today in our churches across the united states, canada, the western world and even growing worldwide across Asia, Africa, etc.

   The topic of Christmas is just booming. Christians and Roman Catholics, (and soon on January 7 the Eastern, Russian, Greek and Romanian Orthodox) will all spend today attending churches where all the sermons will be on promoting and celebrating Christmas, and bringing Christ back into Christmas. I just scanned the TV preachers this morning and everyone was promoting this yule tide holy day. John Hagee today was fanatical to defend the War Against Christmas, and like usual, is ready to practically behead (vocally or mentally) anyone who disagrees with him on the topic of Christmas being a Christian holy day.

   For those with a strong desire to learn a counter biblical view on the subject of Christmas, and have an open mind to the problems of celebrating this Romish inspired holy day, I would encourage you to get a hot cup of tea, settle into your reading chair, and look to put on the whole counsel of God. Learn the arguments made, even by Presbyterian and reformed churches today, and be prepared to rebuke them. It is a very difficult holiday to walk away from in this world run by Antichrist, but it is necessary to think about it today. My parents were really upset with me when I started about 18 years ago to question my Roman Catholic sacred tradition.

   After 18 years of not celebrating Christmas, each year gets a little easier to gently respond when people wish me a Merry Christmas, but it is not easy for many this time of year. I would rather be in Russia next week where they don’t celebrate it on December 25, and then out of there when they do on January 7. I would rather be in Middle East, Asia or Central Asia or India where it is not celebrated, but Rome and the Christians are spreading it worldwide now so that in time it will be possible all will be celebrating it just for the commercial benefits to make money. In any event, enjoy:

   ——–
   What About Celebrating A Secular Christmas? #1 Man-made Holy Days Forbidden by God
   http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=84151040250
   http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/84151040250.pdf
   ———–
   What About Celebrating A Secular Christmas? #2 Learn Not the Way of the Heathen
   http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=817151123393
   http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/817151123393.pdf

   Here are the rest of the PDFs:

   What About Celebrating A Secular Christmas? #3 Destroy All Monuments to Idolatry
   media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/8181510390.pdf
   ——-
   What About Celebrating A Secular Christmas? #4 Love, Pagans & Meat Offered To Idols 1
   http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/824151245492.pdf
   ——-
   What About Celebrating A Secular Christmas? #5 Love, Pagans & Meat Offered To Idols 2
   http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/831151234288.pdf
   ——–
   What About Celebrating A Secular Christmas? 6 Xmas, Easter Keeping Is Sin Against God
   http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/9715113711.pdf

   Reply

5. Hi Walt, what is the Reformed understanding of Jesus statement, my kingdom isnt of this world. Thanks K

   Reply

   1. Kevin wrote:

      “Hi Walt, what is the Reformed understanding of Jesus statement, my kingdom isnt of this world. Thanks K”

      It will take some study Kevin. While I have been watching Tim’s work carefully and trying to even buck some of my own historicist and Roman Catholic learning, I can say today’s article is going to be a significant difference between what he will teach about the future role of Christ on earth vs. what the reformers taught. It is not just a controversy going forward over dates of fulfillment in history, but what will happen in the future while Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father ruling and reigning on earth today.

      I suggest you begin here:

      http://www.puritandownloads.com/many-free-mp3s-what-is-a-christian-nation-by-greg-price-samuel-rutherford-william-symington-et-al/

      “Below is a quote (emphases added) from the first sermon, by Greg Price, in the What is a Christian Nation? series above.

      Objection: Why spend time in a sermon (let alone a series of sermons) on matters related to the civil government? ****Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.**** We should rather spend our time addressing only the salvation of souls and matters related to the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

      Answer: Now while I agree that the primary subject of preaching is that of the salvation of sinners through Jesus Christ, I do not agree that Christ’s salvation is limited to the soul of man (or mere spiritual matters). The salvation of Christ, dear ones, extends as far as the curse of God extends upon mankind due to sin.

      Did the curse of God extend only to the soul? Absolutely not! The curse of God extended to the body of man, to the toil of man, to the birth of man, and to the social relationships of man in civil society. Who would dare look at the wickedness and tyranny of laws and leaders in nations today, and yet declare that sin and God’s curse has not extended to the civil realm of society?

      More importantly, consider the record of biblical revelation in which God clearly reveals how sin polluted the civil realm (beginning in the book of Genesis and forward) as well as the individual, familial, and ecclesiastical realms of mankind (for example, in the book of Genesis from the very beginning we see the curse upon the civil society that built the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:1-9; the tyranny of the kings in enslaving Lot and his family, Genesis 14:12; the civil toleration of gross sodomy in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:1-11). Thus, if the redemption of Christ is to be complete and to reach as far as does the curse, civil rulers and civil governments must come to Christ (as we see shall be the case as predicted in Psalm 72:8-11, and note that this prophecy is fulfilled in history “throughout all generations” verse 5; Zechariah 2:11; Revelation 11:15).

      ***Moreover, it is an error to interpret the words of Christ (“my kingdom is not of this world”, literally “my kingdom is not out of this world”) spoken to the Roman governor, Pilate (in John 18:36) to mean that Christ’s dominion as Mediator does not extend over civil governments. It is indeed true that Christ’s kingdom does not ORIGINATE from “out of” this world (for it is often called the “kingdom of heaven” as it originates with Christ who reigns over all from His mediatorial throne at God’s right hand in heaven). But though Christ’s kingdom does not ORIGINATE from “out of” this world, it does come TO this world and brings life, righteousness, and peace through the power of the God’s Spirit and through the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as we see this kingdom announced by John the Baptist and by Christ Himself, Matthew 3:2; Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:15).****

      Thus, the kingdom of Christ brings Christ’s gracious and righteous rule to bear in all of creation where sin has spread its deadly rebellion and power to destroy. There where tyranny and corruption pollute is where Christ spreads his life-giving power of renewal through His life, death, and resurrection. And as was said earlier, one of those realms where sin has so pervasively manifested its ugly head is in the realm of civil government.

      ***Therefore, the redeeming power of Christ and His heavenly kingdom must and does bring peace not only to individuals and to families, but also brings peace to nations and their civil leaders (as official representatives of the nations).***

      Another way of saying the same thing is that Christ, as God’s appointed Mediator, exercises a universal dominion by way of His royal rule over all things to the glory of God and to the benefit and profit of His church (Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:19-23).

      ***This universal dominion includes, therefore, all kings and kingdoms, all rulers and nations without exception, even those as we shall see who rebel against and resist Christ (Psalm 22:27,28; Jeremiah 10:7; Revelation 19:15,16).***

      Christ’s universal dominion over all nations (not only Israel) is demonstrated throughout Scripture in the judgment He brings upon nations that persist in rebelling against Him and His Moral Law (upon Egypt, Isaiah 19:1,4; upon Moab, Jeremiah 48:1,7; upon Babylon, Jeremiah 50:1,2; upon Tyre, Amos 1:9).

      Thus, Christ’s kingdom and His rule as God’s appointed Mediator, dear ones, is not limited in its dominion.

      Reply

      1. Walt, having read that quote from Price, a question came to mind that causes me great thought. Here is my question. God set up civil government as restrainers on earth, of course knowing the Spirit is the true restrainer. But these systems have been corrupted by sinful men, and creation has beeen corrupted by sin. We arent in the garden anymore. Adam and Eve got booted. God will destroy fallen creation some day. John said that when Jesus came, they received him not. Iow, creation is deteriorating and will be destroyed. However, men are redeemed, not governments or fallen human nature . And I think in this context we understand my kingdom isnt of this world. Grace came from heaven, and has not innerconection with fallen creation. Your thoughts.? Im working my way thru the Price sermon. Thanks

         Reply

      2. Tim, i was running thru some old posts and i came across this comment by Walt. It seems Price says that salvation is not limited to the soul of man. How would this square with God destroying the present heavens and earth. It seems to me it isnt his goal to preserve or save them.

         Reply

         1. I think the point he was making was that Christ came to save body and soul even though the body as we know it will be destroyed through the corrupting processes resulting from the Fall. The Scripture makes this point in 1 Corinthians 6, where the body is destroyed (indicating that this present world as it currently exists is not our ultimate end), but immediately Paul goes to the resurrection:

            Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.” (1 Corinthians 6:13-14).

            Similarly for the heavens and earth. They will be destroyed in order to be renewed:

            “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. … Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:10-13)

            Creation will be destroyed due to its corruption, but renewed according to Christ making all things new. Same with our bodies. He came to save both body and soul.

            Walt’s objection was invalid in that he believed that the Kingdom of Heaven should currently exercise civil power, for the Lord reigns over all. Thus, the process of renewing the heavens and earth should begin now, with the Church. But Scripture tells us otherwise: “But now we see not yet all things put under him.” (Hebrews 2:8).

            The Reformer’s mistake (Calvin in Geneva and Knox in Scotland) was thinking that the Church should be the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, exercising civil power, and thus attempted to reform the 5th Empire of Daniel’s visions, thinking Daniel had foreseen the Church taking civil power after Rome for the purposes of renewing the earth and establishing Christ’s earthly kingdom. It was a fool’s errand, for the Church is not called to reform the Beast of Revelation 13. We are not even called to exercise civil power yet. That is for Christ to do when He returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron (the 6th earthly empire of Daniel’s visions), and we will join Him in that when He does (Revelation 5:10; 20:4). But that has not happened yet.

            Walt misunderstood my strict adherence to the Danielic timeline to mean that I did not believe Jesus is Lord at all and does not control the affairs of men. Of course He does. Even as He said His kingdom was not of this world—and if it were he could summon his legions to rescue him (John 18:36)—we also know from the Scriptures that Pilate himself had no power except from God (John 19:11) and everything that happened in Jesus’ trial as according to God’s eternal decrees: “being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). God is in control of everything.

            It is unfortunate that even with their expansive intellectual armory, the Church of Scotland is unable to understand this simple truth: Just because God is in control of the Universe does not mean that Jesus currently exercises civil power on earth. Nor does His Church until He return. It’s that simple.

            Thus, for obvious reasons, my criticism of Rome claiming to be the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth was understood by Walt to be an implicit criticism of the Church of Scotland. If the shoe fits… I suppose.

            Anyway, Greg Price concluded his message with a statement that is easily falsifiable:

            “Thus, Christ’s kingdom and His rule as God’s appointed Mediator, dear ones, is not limited in its dominion.”

            That sounds nice, but is plainly untrue, especially since Price takes it to mean that Christ as mediator ought to exercise civil power through us.

            But Revelation 11:15 says Jesus’ earthly dominion is not established until the first resurrection and the 1000 year reign:

            “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

            Thus, His dominion is not “unlimited”. Otherwise Hebrews would not say “we see not yet all things put under him.”

            One day the kingdoms of the earth will be subject to His civil authority: “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. … and he shall rule them with a rod of iron:” (Revelation 19:11-15).

            But that has not happened yet.

            Reply

            1. Thx Tim, phenominal explanation and i totally concur that scripture is clear Christ has not exercised control over civil authority at this time, i mean just look at th e civil authorities are run by sinful men. But indeed he will upon his return. I was trying to explain to my wife today these things as well as chronologicalizing your eschatology youve presented from scripture and summed up to me somewhere im trying to find it. Im explaining to her the difference between historical premillinialism and dispensational premilinialism. I believe many early fathers held to the first. Your post today really solidifies things for me. Very clear brother. Thank you for taking the time. K

            2. Tim, incidentally i shared your post with my wife, we wholeheartedly agree.. Its certainly a Roman Catholic thing that salvation is a human renovation project hence the church being used by God renovate the 5th kingdom. But its amazing this view persisted in light of the fact that God will destroy this world that gets worse in time, and he will bring about a new heavens and earth. Certainly Christians are renewed spiritually as he has called us to a spiritual relationship with him, not a physical one. Paul says our inner man is being renewed each day and our outer man is dying. And the culminate will be a new body, not a renovated earthly one. The RC mistake also Horton says is a false understanding of sarx and soma. We arent fused with Christ’s flesh but we are incorporated into his body thru the Spirit. The transformation for the Christian is Supernatural and spiritual. The Spirit will raise us with a new heavenly body. K

6. For those who would like to listen to a sermon that is very recent, and likely going to led contrary to what Tim is teaching about Christ ruling and reigning on earth, see this sermon.

   Now note that Dodson starts the 1260 year period at 800 AD as some more modern historicists vs. Tim’s starting date at the end of 4th century…395AD; see: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/03/08/the-fifth-empire-part-3/). Dodson goes on to add years to the 1260 period with 1290 (30) and 1335 (45) year periods which Tim does not, but no matter the ending date of the 1260 or the 1335 year period, it is what happens afterwards of most critical differences between Tim and Dodson on Christ’s rule and reign from heave in the future.

   Biblical Prophecy & Postmillennialism 41, Revelation 19, Christ Conquers All Nations
   Series: Jim Dodson Messages · 63 of 63 – (12/15/2015)

   http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1215151044232

   http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/1215151044232.pdf

   The Sermon is based upon the Reformers teaching in the Directory for Public Worship of God, and states:

   “Of Publick Prayer Before the Sermon

   To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the Antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk; for the blessing of God upon the reformed churches, especially upon the churches and kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, now more strictly and religiously united in the Solemn National League and Covenant; and for our plantations in the remote parts of the world: more particularly for that church and kingdom whereof we are members, that therein God would establish peace and truth, the purity of all his ordinances, and the power of godliness; prevent and remove heresy, schism, profaneness, superstition, security, and unfruitfulness under the means of grace; heal all our rents and divisions, and preserve us from breach of our Solemn Covenant. (Directory for the Publick Worship of God)

   Reply

7. Walt, this is very interesting. I will read the link you left. I read your whole post and its very interesting. I finished a book sometime back called Roman Catholicism Theology and Practice by Greg Allison. He covers an interesting issue, namely one faulty axion with Rome, the grace nature innerconection that undelies there carnal doctrines. He emphasises that when nature ( creation) was corrupted by sin, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden. When Jesus came to His own, creation rejected him and received him not John1 . And someday God will destroy fallen creation. Grace comes from heaven supernaturally, and He argues that fallen nature cannot be a conduit for grace. Grace redeems nature, renews it, it doesnt elevate it outside itself. That first faulty axiom leads to the 2nd faulty axiom of Rome that the church is the continuation of the incarnation and atonement thru the acts of the church fueled by their first axiom. Iow we should never forget this may be what it means His kingdom isnt of this world. The future of fallen creation is its final destruction by fire. Allison says when the Jews at passover, deserving the same thing the Egyptians deserved, God didnt do a renovation progect, He passed over them forensic. Rome gives to much creedence to the role of the law and nature and will. The law was given to the Jews and brought forth sin and death. The law drives uscto the gospel. We know that God’s law is holy and a guide to Holy living, but it cannot save a man. Conflating law and gospel has always been the corruption of faithvat its core. Anyway, thanks for the info, you are always so helpful providing this info. K

   Reply

8. Tim said,

   The reason Satan’s time was short was that he would very shortly hand over “his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Revelation 13:) to Roman Catholicism which would continue the administration of his earthly kingdom.

   I found this one to be a little confusing. Why would Satan be angry that his kingdom would be given to one who would be a great deceiver, and one who would be “drunk on the blood of the saints”? Wouldn’t that entity be a strong ally of his? One whom he would wish to strengthen at any opportunity?

   I also agree with Walt, in that you seem to be ignoring the references in Scripture where God and/or Christ comes spiritually in one form or another. (Isaiah 26:21, Isaiah 30:27, Micah 1:3, etc)

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your comment. Let me look at Revelation 12:12 and Revelation 13:2 a little closer and get back with you. It seems to be a reasonable point.

      Regarding the references when God and Christ come spiritually, I understand your point, but the various verses I highlighted appear to refer to His coming “at the end.”

      1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and Daniel 7:13-14 appear to refer to the same event:

      “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

      “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14)

      Additionally, it is notable, I think, that “dominion” in Daniel 7 only appears to be used when earthly rule is in view, i.e.,

      “After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.” (Daniel 7:6)
      “As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” (Daniel 7:12)
      “And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:14)
      “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” (Daniel 7:26)
      “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” (Daniel 7:27)

      Take this along with the appearance that a Heavenly Kingdom is delivered to the saints at the time of the Fourth Beast, but Earthly Dominion does not appear to be described until the Little Horn is destroyed, and it sure looks like there is no earthly reign by Christ and His saints until after Antichrist’s dominion is taken away. In other words, the Little Horn and Christ’s Church never appear to have earthly dominion simultaneously. Either one has it or the other, but not both, and Antichrist gets it first.

      In the days of the Roman Empire “the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44). This seems to refer to the Heavenly kingdom that Jesus said was not of this world. Earth does not appear to be in view.

      There are four beasts, and “the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). This appears to refer to the Heavenly kingdom, but again earth does not appear to be in view.

      Then, after all the preceding empires are totally ground to dust (and therefore after Antichrist, which embodies all of those empires), “the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35). Now earth is in view, but it is after the judgment against antichrist.

      Again after the destruction of antichrist, “the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven” (Daniel 7:27) is given to the saints. Now earth is in view (i.e., under heaven), but again, it is after antichrist.

      Put these all together in the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7, recognizing that there are two judicial movements in view (one against the Roman Empire and then one against Antichrist) and the only entity with Earthly Dominion between Christ’s first and second advent is Antichrist. However, when the two judicial movements are collapsed into one, it appears that Christ’s Church has earthly dominion immediately after the Roman Empire, which is a great error. I think it is a misreading that plays right into the hands of Roman Catholicism, and Elliott, I think, provides an unfortunate illustration of just that tendency.

      Elliott interprets the man-child delivered by the Woman of Revelation 12 to be the Church ruling on earth through coercion of civil power:

      “It seems clear, that whatever the woman’s hope in her travail, the lesser consummation was the one figured in the man-child’s birth and assumption; viz. the elevation of the christians first to recognition as a body politic, then very quickly to the supremacy of the throne in the Apocalyptic world, i. e. the Roman Empire a throne which, as thenceforth christian, might consequently thenceforth, just like Solomon’s, be designated as the throne of God. Seated on this, it appeared, the christian body would, after a little while, coerce the heathens of the empire and rule them even as with a rod of iron.” (Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol 3, chapter 1, Apocalypse 12:1-12).

      Clearly, Elliott believed that the Church received Earthly Dominion after the Fourth Beast. I think he concludes this because he collapsed the two judicial movements into one single judgment, as evidenced by his statement that “Daniel’s Little Horn was to last until the coming of the Ancient of days, and then to be destroyed and given to the burning flame [Daniel 7:11]” (Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol 3, chapter 3, Apocalypse 13 & 17). But Daniel did not say that. He said the body was given over to the flame, and when 7:12 is compared to Revelation 13:2, it is clear that the Little Horn lived on beyond the judgment against the body of the fourth beast, and took earthly dominion, “and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Revelation 13:7).

      When we see that there are two different judicial movements in view in Daniel 2:34-35, and in Daniel 7, it becomes clear that it is Antichrist, not Christ’s church, that receives earthly dominion before Christ’s return. The saints receive a heavenly kingdom during the Roman Empire, but the saints of the Most High do not obtain an earthly dominion until Antichrist is destroyed.

      Miss that distinction on the two judicial movements and we start making Antichrist’s argument for him—namely that Christ’s Church was to take dominion immediately after the Roman Empire. I do not believe Daniel taught that, but Roman Catholicism sure wants us to believe it is true because it points inevitably to Roman Catholicism as the Church of Christ—a very grievous error indeed.

      Thanks again for your comments.

      Tim

      Reply

   2. Dan,

      Thanks for your patience. I wanted to think about this for a little while before getting back to you. I had a rough outline of this as I planned to work it out in a little more detail in later posts, but here is my thinking:

      The Beasts of Revelation 12, 13 and 17 appear to lay down a Danielic timeline, or at least a Danielic chronology, as can be seen by the number of horns and heads depicted in each chapter, and whether there are crowns on the heads or on the horns. The Four Beasts of Daniel 7 together have seven heads and ten horns (1 Lion Head, 1 Bear Head, 4 Leopard Heads, 1 Beast Head with 10 horns upon it). The descriptions of the “red dragon” (Revelation 12:3), sea beast (Revelation 13:1) and the “scarlet coloured beast” (Revelation 17:3) have some figurative and symbolic unity with Daniel 7.

      What is more, the crowns, or lack of crowns, seem to indicate an eschatological period from which to measure each chronological period. In Revelation 12:3, the red dragon has “seven crowns upon his heads,” which suggests that we are looking at a period when the four empires were ruling the earth. In Revelation 13:1, the sea beast has “upon his horns ten crowns,” which suggests that we are looking at a period when the ten kings were ruling the earth. In Revelation 17, neither heads nor horns have crowns upon them, suggesting that it is a period before the ten horns have arisen (i.e., “the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet” (Revelation 17:12).

      There is a civil aspect to the depictions of the animals, of course, because the crowns belong to kings. The four succeeding beast empires are civil, earthly empires, and the ten horns are civil, earthly kings. In Revelation 12, Satan himself is seen to have some commerce with the physical, civil persecution of the elect, for he is depicted casting “the third part of the stars of heaven” down to earth. The last time this specific imagery was used, it was to describe the activity of the antagonist of Daniel 8:

      “And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.” (Daniel 8:10)

      Placed as it is in the period of the dominion of the preceding empires, we can identify Satan’s casting to earth “the third part of the stars of heaven” with Antiochus IV’s persecution, as he is the antagonist of Daniel 8. I consider this to be further evidence that the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is a different entity than the Little Horn of Daniel 7, and in fact precedes it. After Antiochus IV’s persecution, the Woman (Israel) is in pain, laboring to give birth, and as prophesied, National Israel gives birth to the Messiah, as Moses prophesied she would (Deuteronomy 18:18). This was the beginning of the time of trouble of which the angelic narrator prophesied in Daniel 12:

      “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” (Daniel 12:1)

      The Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel, and the man-child of Revelation 12 is Christ, and the dragon now acting through the civil affairs of the Roman Empire, standing ready “to devour her child as soon as it was born” is a reference to Herod’s slaughter of the children, depicted in Matthew 2:1-18.

      In both cases thus depicted (Antiochus IV acting as a civil authority under the Greek empire and Herod acting as such under the Roman), we have the persecuting civil authority in the figure or person of Satan persecuting the elect, or attempting to kill Christ Himself. The man-child is raised up to the throne of God (Revelation 12:5) and the devil is cast down to earth, and thus the people are warned because “the devil is come down unto you” (Revelation 12:12). What he does when he is cast down is continue what he had been doing before, which is acting through the civil authorities to persecute the elect, as can be seen by the way in which the people of God are persecuted by him—to the death:

      “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (Revelation 12:11)

      This seems to me to be a reference to more persecutions under the civil authority in the subapostolic era (i.e., “unto death”).

      Now we come to the verse in question: “having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Revelation 12:12).

      I think it is significant that the reference to Antiochus’ persecution is a persecution by the civil authority, and the reference to the attempt to take Jesus’ life, it is a civil authority doing it, and when the reference is to the persecution of the elect, it is the civil authority (Roman power) persecuting them “unto the death.” And all of this conveyed to us in Danielic imagery in which the succession of Daniel 7 empires is envisaged.

      But then we get to the time, times and a half, or the 1,260 years, and suddenly the war against the woman and her seed turns from physical persecution by captivity and the sword, to spiritual persecution by the introduction of doctrinal error, for the flood by which the serpent attempts to cause the woman to be carried away is a flood that comes out of the mouth of the serpent (Revelation 12:15, c.f. Ephesians 4:14). The woman is given a place of refuge where she is nourished, I presume by the Word since her seed “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” and protected from the face of the serpent, which is to say, from his errors and flood of false doctrine. The physical persecution continues, however, only it is now administered by a different entity: the Beast. In Revelation 13:7, power is given to him “to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” and that power is effected by civil persecution: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” (Revelation 13:8)

      It is noteworthy that the Woman is protected from what comes out of the mouth of the Serpent, but is not protected from the civil power of the Beast. That suggest two things: first, the Serpent’s persecution at some point changes from a civil form of persecution to an attempt to mislead through the introduction of error, and second, the authority to persecute with the (civil) sword transitions from the hands of the serpent to the hands of the Beast, for Revelation says as much: “and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” (Revelation 13:2).

      Now to get to your question,

      “Why would Satan be angry that his kingdom would be given to one who would be a great deceiver, and one who would be “drunk on the blood of the saints”? “

      I don’t think the passage is saying that the Serpent is angry that his kingdom is being given away. It appears that he is fervent in his civil persecution because he has such a short time in which to complete it before it is someone else’s turn. It’s the shortness of the schedule that causes him to act with fury. To support this interpretation, I provide the two different words that are used to suggest “anger”:

      “having great wrath (θυμὸν)” (Revelation 12:12)

      “the dragon was wroth (ὠργίσθη) with the woman” (Revelation 12:17)

      The first word thymós carries a connotation of being rushed, since it is from thyō, “rush along, getting heated up, breathing violently,” and the context supports that, as it states explicitly that his time was short.

      The second word orgízō conveys a “fixed anger” (settled opposition), as if for the long haul.

      The transition depicted in Revelation 12 is from what appears to be a civil persecution that is rushed, to a doctrinal persecution that is settled in for the long-haul. Thus, I do not believe the Serpent in Revelation 12:12 is angry that someone else is taking over, but rather rushed in his work of civil persecution because the time when he has to hand it over to someone else is fast approaching.

      When taken together, Revelation 12 and 13 therefore have an interesting transition from the Serpent to the Beast of the authority to enact civil persecution against the Woman:

      “and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. … And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 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. … He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” (Revelation 12:2,7,10)

      Likewise, there appears to be a transition from the Serpent enacting civil persecution (“unto the death”) to the Serpent having only the introduction of doctrinal error as his mode of persecution (i.e., the flood out of his mouth).

      This would explain how the Woman could be “safe” from the face of the Serpent for 1,260 years, but “overcome” by the Beast’s power to persecute by captivity and the sword for the same period. If the Woman is safe from the Serpent, but is overcome by the Beast during the same time period, it suggests two different modes of persecution. The saints can be overcome by the civil persecution, but never by the doctrinal one. The Woman never succumbs to the doctrinal error introduced by the Serpent, but the Woman is constantly worn out by the civil power of the Beast, as she was by the Serpent before he “gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Thus, since the Serpent initially engaged in civil persecution, and then the Beast takes over, the Serpent would be rushed to effect his civil persecution before he is constrained to limit his war to the propagation of error. And thus, his fury before the transition has more to do with being hurried along in his civil persecution, than angry at the fact that the Beast is taking over.

      I don’t know if that even begins to answer your concern, and there is much more to be said about this, but I did not want to delay a response to you much longer. Thank you for your patience,

      Tim

      Reply

9. Dan, Kevin, Tim,

   There is a very interesting parallel – research I get with Tim’s ending of the 1260 year period in 1655AD. For me, it is interesting because in some circles of historical post millennialism there is a view that the two witnesses proceed through the 1260 year period. Steele writes about this in his Two Witnesses here:

   http://www.truecovenanter.com/steele/steele_two_witnesses.html

   However, I found an old email when researching Rev. 12 that was interesting as it says it describes the events “previous”, “through” and “subsequent” to the 1260 years period and second reformation.

   Now, I know Tim is going to disagree with this commentary, about Rev. 12 and certainly Psalms 68-69, but it is very fascinating if Tim’s dates of the 1260 years are actually fulfilled in or around 1655. This is just perfect timing for the killing of the witnesses (e.g., killing of the Scottish-English-Irish testimony that was absolutely the high water mark of Protestant testimony against Roman Catholicism), and the WATERFLOOD of false doctrine that proceeded afterwards. Clearly, the waterflood of false doctrine has “flooded” the world, including Christmas. What Puritan or Covenanter would have ever allowed Christmas during the second reformation? Here is an English Puritan on this point:

   ———–
   “Thomas Mockett (or Mocket) (1602-1670), was a studious theologian, Reformed preacher of the Gospel, and scholarly puritan divine during the era of Westminster. Edmund Calamy describes him as, “a very pious, and humble man.”

   Mockett’s argument in this work is directed to well-meaning Christians who are defiling the Regulative Principle – that God alone determines the manner and time in which sinners are to approach him. Writing against the, “observation of Christ’s nativity,” Mockett shows the Christian how he is to reject, whole-heartily, adding Christ into Christmas as a religious or worship observance.

   Mr. Mockett is not going to deal with taking Christ out of Christmas. Instead, he is going to painstakingly demonstrate the ill-use of trying to reclaim Christ for Christmas as an unholy venture. He will show that it is a detestable, sinful practice to put Christ back into Christmas since men have no warrant from God to do so. Though they do this in pretense of honoring Christ in a day of worship, and do so with a sincere heart, as Mockett shows, “Good intentions and well meanings cannot justify any unwarrantable practice.”

   Mockett’s treatment of this issue is clear and well documented. The student of Scripture and historical theology cannot but come away with believing that reclaiming Christ in Christmas is truly a violation of God’s word, and a sinful practice which has harmed the church throughout its history.”
   http://www.puritanshop.com/shop/the-christians-duty-to-reject-christmas-thomas-mockett-or-mocket-1602-1670/
   —————

   Now for an interpretation on Rev. 12 that is fascinating in light of Tim’s ending date of the 1260 year period at 1655AD (or even close to it). Read below…and consider the “killing times” in Scotland, the silencing of the Scottish Covenanter, English Puritan testimony thereafter, and the waterflood of mumbo jumbo you see today on TBN and from other TV ministers spreading foolishness worldwide.

   Wow, interesting. I’m not going to disclose the name of the author…however, it was not me.

   ————-
   “Rev 12 walks you through events previous to the 1260 years period, through the 1260 years period (the war in heaven which describes the events of the second reformation), and the events subsequent to the second reformation (the waterflood). Thus we get a sort of big picture view of the 1260 period– God’s description has put as it were book marks around the war in heaven–he tells us what happens before it–the main event within it–and what happens just after it. This information is extremely important in seeing the bigger picture.

   Revelation 11 focuses mainly on the 1260 year period and events especially around “the end” of that period– it’s focus is upon the career of the two witnesses– their character, their faithfulness, and their death (the killing of the witnesses)–the fall of 1/10 part of Babylon– and even events just subsequent to the 1260 year period–(the resurrection of the witnesses).

   Thus –events described in Rev 12:1-5 are in fact happening prior to the 1260 year period described in Rev 11– notice that the great red dragon cast the stars of heaven down and prepares to devour the man child–and the man child is born prior to the beginning of the wilderness period–the 1260 years)

   Next– Rev 12:6 says–“Then” the woman flies into the wilderness. After Rev 12:6 the war in heaven is described.

   Here is a bit more on psalm 68-69–

   Notice the war in heaven described in Psalm 68–God arises and his enemies are scattered(vs1-3)–God is riding on the clouds(vs 4)– God defend the weak one (vs. 5,6)– he is marching through the wilderness before his people (vs-7)– the earth shakes at God’s presence (the symbol of revolutionary change) (vs 8)–he send out a plentiful rain (the symbol of doctrine of the Holy Spirit poured out)–see Dt 32:1-3 and Ps 65: 9-13 to confirm his people who were weary and thirsty (Ps 63) in the middle of the 1260 year wilderness. Therefore, due to though watering doctrine (rain) of God –the Lord gave the word and great was the company of those who published it (vs 11)– the opposing armies flee (vs 12-16). vs 13 says to the church–though you have been very poor now you are made very wealthy

   Verse 17–18 is very important– in relation to Rev 12– the war chariots of God and thousands of angels are mentioned. In Rev 12 Michael and his angels fight the devil and his angels.

   How did this fight take place– Ps 68:18 says –the Mediator Christ has been resurrected, led captivity captive and received gifts for men–what gifts did he give men to fight in this war in heaven (the church)?– Ephesians 4:11-13 says– he gave us pastors and teachers to build up the church.

   vs 19–the church rejoices–over daily benefits and a time of great salvation.

   Now if this does not describe the reformation period perfectly I do not know what would.

   Next–what happened after the reformation period.

   Psalm 69 is clear that the waterflood is upon them now–(vs 1,2, 14,15) –vs 11 indicates that these witness have again returned to their “sackcloth condition”. Why? What happened to send then back into their sackcloth condition? vs 4– they that hate me without a cause are now a great multitude–vs 8–I have become a stranger to my own brothers in Christ–why?–vs 9– the zeal of thine house has eaten me up, the reproaches of them that are fallen upon thee are fallen upon me–see Jn 2:17.

   This indicates to me that the waterflood (a flood of false doctrine–as opposed to the water of God –the rain–the true doctrine) has now swept across the church. The faithful witnesses zealously contended against it, like Christ did against those who profaned the Temple. This infuriated the unfaithful ones within the visible church and outnumbered, the faithful witnesses were again cast out into a wilderness condition to finish up the 1260 wilderness period.

   Rev 12 says a man child was born ( The Christian Roman Empire in its early form) the beast sought to devour her immediately–the women was cast out into the wilderness (a sackcloth condition), then the good guys won a war in heaven (the church)– the church had a period of rich blessing– and in response the devil cast out a waterflood (false doctrine) and then witnesses went back into the sackcloth condition.”

   Reply

10. The two witnesses essentially go into a sackcloth position and then in time will be handed the kingdom:

    “Next, it may be asked: “Are the churches implicated in these sacrilegious robberies of God and invasions of human rights?” Yes. Though the princes be chief in the trespass, the priests, and prophets, and all the people of the lands are involved. There is an “unholy alliance” existing, and of long continuance, betwixt the two beasts. The beast of the earth causes all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond; to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads, Rev. 13:16. The mark is that of the first or civil beast at the instigation of the other—an apostate church commands, under awful pains and penalties, allegiance to the civil power, verse 13.

    The same alliance and co-operation is presented more plainly, chapter 17:1-3. The woman is carried by the beast—the beast is controlled by the woman, verse 7—the church is supported by the state, the state is molded by the church—there are Cardinals and Lord-bishops in the legislatures and cabinets of the nations; and there are many—very many other ecclesiastics who, though destitute of titles of dignity, wear soft raiment and are in kings’ palaces.

    Could Popery exist in Spain, France, Austria—Prelacy in England and Ireland, without the influence of the hierarchy? Could infidelity, slavery, Mormonism exist in the United States without the concurrence of the church? And what shall be said of Freemasonry, Odd-Fellowship and kindred combinations of Christians and infidels, whether angels of light or of darkness; but that they are all the inventions of men, whose faith no longer relies on the ordinances of divine institution.

    Substitutes they are, and often avowedly so, for the resources of the covenant of grace; which, it is assumed, has failed to reform the human race.

    This is the doing of the false prophet—the mother of harlots, who is equally the mother of all these abominations. The kings of the earth, and many others, have committed spiritual fornication with the mother and many of her daughters. The golden cup, worldly gain and sensual gratification, have proved irresistible incentives to multitudes in the church as well as in the state, to renounce {36} allegiance to Zion’s King, the Prince of the kings of the earth.

    ***And while these unhallowed combinations continue to subvert or counteract the great ordinances of heavenly origin—a gospel ministry and a scriptural magistracy, the witnesses must prophesy. To give testimony against them, and judicially to pass sentence upon them, is their appropriate work; and, like their divine Lord and exemplar, they shall not fail nor be discouraged till he, through their instrumentality, has set judgment in the earth.

    The kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. The little stone, cut out without hands, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; and they shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.****”

    http://www.truecovenanter.com/steele/steele_two_witnesses.html

    Reply

11. Walt and Tim,
    I rarely say much…tim has much more to teach me than i do him. But, Walt, I would not be so quick to put conclusions in Tim’s mouth. Unless Tim affirms that there are two ways of salvation, law in the OT and grace in the NT this is not dispensationalism with a twist. I am committed to Scripture not the Reformers–as heretical as that may sound. Therefore, the issue is–what does Tim imply by saying that the interadventual kingdom is spiritual and NOT earthly. Does that mean that there is no relationship between the Lordship of Christ and earthly political powers? Does that mean that if a Hitler tells us to join the army and kill Jews we must submit to the governing authorities because they are ordained of God? Does that make Tim amillenial or does he allow for postmillenialism with a twist. I will let him explain himself–I will put no conclusions in his mouth. Up to this point, I cannot fault him on any of his exegesis. But if I cannot exegetically correct him, i am compelled by sola scriptura to believe him, or at least suspend judgement until i have conscientiously failed to refute him. THAT is what sola scriptura means.

    Dr. Gus Gianello
    Issachar Biblical Institute

    Reply

12. Dr. Gus,

    Your right labels are not very helpful. Tim will certainly respond graciously as always, and I suspect I will continue to need help in my communication skills.

    I did read his article carefully, and can see parallels between his views and those of dispensational types who see the fulfillment of prophecy in Israel on earth and the church in heaven. If we remove the term dispensational for comparison, I still am certain Tim is pretty clear on his position:

    “Jesus does not now have an Earthly Kingdom, and no matter how many times and ways people tried to foist one upon Him, He rebuffed, refused and redirected their inquiries. There is no Earthly Kingdom of God until His glorious return. Period.”

    Not much wiggle room here on his literal interpretation.

    Thank you for referencing that we must look to the Scriptures and not the reformers for final authority. However, let me say that there is much value in getting Ministerial and Church court opinions over your (or my) own opinion when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I would not through the baby out with the bath water as we can thank the reformers for being killed for their views in sola scriptura. Not bad to hear their views and compare it with Tim’s or mine.

    Walt.

    Reply

13. I may be mistaken but it seems Tim is historical premillinialism. It is often confused with other premilinial views, but isnt. I bekieve Reformed have held this position. A man name Ladd at Fulker seminary was a hist premill. There is also a conenental premill view held by many at the St Louis semunary. Iraneus and Polycarp i read held parts of this view. But i want to be careful not to categorize, im not an expert. K.

    Reply

14. Almost all the reformers were historical post-mill. Yes, you are right about both Fuller, Iraneus and Polyarp.

    ————-
    a. Without question, the best and most influential historic premillennialist was the late George Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological Seminary. Through the work of Ladd, historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among Evangelical and Reformed theologians. Other major historic premillennialists include the late Walter Martin, John Warwick Montgomery, J. Barton Payne, Heny Alford (the noted Greek scholar), and Theodore Zahn (the German NT specialist). The best examples of current historical premillennial work would the many scholars of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Evangelical Free).

    b. Historic premillennialism draws its name from the fact that many of the early Church Fathers (i.e. Ireneaus [140-203], who as a disciple of Polycarp, who had been an disciple of the apostle of John, Justin Martyr [100-165], and Papias [80-155]), apparently believed and taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth, after the return of Christ.

    c. Several major Evangelical seminaries have some historic premillennial representation such as Fuller and Trinity. Surprisingly, a number of the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (a Reformed institution), held to a covenantal form of premillennialism — J.O. Buswell, J. Barton Payne and R. Laird Harris. However, all of these men have recently departed for glory, and the Reformed varieties of premillennialism are probably gone with them.

    http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm

    Reply

15. Kevin, I wrote this before to Nick on A See of One (June 3, 2014):

    ————
    Nick,

    Actually, this is what is most incredibly amazing about the Westminster Assembly period. Our of the more than 115 ministers in attendance, after extensive biblical discussion on the subordinate standards that were agreed, approved and published, they agreed on one final topic. That their generation was not given “unity and uniformity” on the subject of eschatology and prophetical interpretation.

    The Divines agreed that future generations would be better suited to come up with the final “unified” biblical position as a church court (e.g., general assembly).

    However, many Ministers wrote individual private interpretations including Calvin, Knox, etc. in commentaries and even in the most amazing Annotations published at Westminster. The 1599 Geneva Bible has marginal references inserted on prophetical passages as well. Many wrote about these issues, and in fact near all the Great reformers were unified in what was called the Historical Post Millennial position on Scripture. A few were historical Pre Millennial, but only the Jesuits were Futurist Pre Mill, and Preterist (full and partial).

    The thing about Tim and myself are that we are firmly historical post mill, and we are working through a few disagreements sharpening iron with the Word, and digging into historical tidbits that help to frame what Scripture is saying to us. The issue is simple. We must figure out what Scripture says using Scripture, and we must apply the “literal sense” or “intended meaning” of the text to each other so to understand what the author (the Lord God) is teaching us. We cannot use history to define Scripture, but must use Scripture to uncover history that fits nicely into God’s revealed Holy Will.

    While Tim might disagree with me/our small flock on when the 1260 year period begins, I can almost (getting close) firmly say that I think Tim has uncovered for me when the falling away took place that is a critical early date that I’ve been trying to find. It is possible that early date in the 4th century could be a schism that started to uncover the Antichrist, and show the early Church Fathers what they warned about. They were looking for a falling away and Antichrist. Tim could have uncovered this for me.

    Even if we disagree when the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods begin and end (the two witnesses are descriptive of the church during the 1260 year period and beyond). As an Elder I know states:

    “Rev 12 walks you through events previous to the 1260 years period, through the 1260 years period (the war in heaven which describes the events of the second reformation), and ***the events subsequent to the second reformation (the waterflood).*** (Walt emphasis***)

    Thus we get a sort of big picture view of the 1260 period– God’s description has put as it were book marks around the war in heaven–he tells us what happens before it–the main event within it–and what happens just after it. This information is extremely important in seeing the bigger picture.

    Revelation 11 focuses mainly on the 1260 year period and events especially around “the end” of that period– it’s focus is upon the career of the two witnesses– their character, their faithfulness, and their death (the killing of the witnesses)–the fall of 1/10 part of Babylon– and even events just subsequent to the 1260 year period–(the resurrection of the witnesses).

    Thus –events described in Rev 12:1-5 are in fact happening prior to the 1260 year period described in Rev 11– notice that the great red dragon cast the stars of heaven down and prepares to devour the man child–and the man child is born prior to the beginning of the wilderness period–the 1260 years)”

    Therefore, we might differ with Tim on this period, but certainly we are both Historical Post Mill, and as the reformers see the Papacy and the Papal system as Antichrist. Very few in the world hold this view….as you know.

    Reply

    1. Walt, thanks for this post. All this has been fascinating to me. I think Tim has done an incredible job on the falling away and laying out Daniel and Revelation. I dont see how anyone who has read Tim’s stuff cant see the rise of Roman Cstholicism. Catholic apologists wont acknowledge that the apostasy comes from within the church at the top level, therfore their magisterium cannot be exempt from scrutiny. K

       Reply

16. While I wrote this about Tim back in 2014, I would need to correct that view today:

    “Therefore, we might differ with Tim on this period, but certainly we are both Historical Post Mill, and as the reformers see the Papacy and the Papal system as Antichrist. Very few in the world hold this view….as you know.”

    I’ve noticed in some writings of Tim since my statement in June 2014 above that he mentioned being a historcist, but not pre-mill or post-mill. Calling Tim “Historical Post Mill” would not be accurate in what I read today so I should be corrected.

    In a note I found in my email states the following:

    “Most Premils prior to the 20th century were historicists (like Taylor). A very helpful commentary on Revelation that I have used frequently is Horae Apocalyticae by E.B. Elliot (a historic premil). Obviously, when one gets to Revelation 19-20, we differ with these men who interpret Christ riding upon a white horse (in Revelation 19 )to be Christ’s bodily Second Coming, and who interpret “the first resurrection” (in Revelation 20) to be the bodily resurrection of believers.”

    —————
    The voice of the church on the coming and kingdom of the Redeemer, or, a history of the doctrine of the reign of Christ on earth (1855),

    Author: Taylor, Daniel T. (Daniel Thompson), 1823-1899; Hastings, H. L. (Horace Lorenzo), 1831-1899

    http://archive.org/details/voiceofchurchonc00tayl

    “The doctrine of the personal reign of Christ in the new earth, is of the Bible, and in presenting the combined testimony of a “cloud of witnesses” in its favor, to bear upon the church in this century, it is not with the view of promulgating novelty. We are no innovators. Pre-millennialism has had its advocates among the orthodox in all ages. We seek the old paths, feeling assured they are the safest and most desirable. We have taken our position. To oppose Post-millennialism and its kindred errors we feel bound, and here we throw down the gauntlet. Being strongly impressed with the nearness of that day when the everlasting kingdom of God shall be established in the renewed earth, and the whole human race broken up and strangely and forever separated ; under this solemn conviction, strengthened by every passing event, we send forth the present volume of testimonies, fraught wirh many a gem of truth, and many a thrilling cry, to awaken, if possible, in all our readers, a deeper interest on the momentous subject of the speedy and visible coming of the Son of Man. Time is short. The season of toil is well nigh spent. Let us be active. Every Christian in this day should be a missionary in earnest. We are not against missions. Rather do we wish there were an army of five hundred thousand missionaries like Brainard, and Wolffe, and Judson. Let this gospel of the kingdom be “preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations,” and then let the end—the kingdom, come. There are thousands of Pre-millennialists in the Protestant churches of Great Britain and America, and Mr. Lord affirms that among missionaries of all denominations that go abroad, there is as great a proportion of them Premillenialists as among the ministry who stay at home.”

    Reply

17. Interesting Video by John MacArthur on who is Antichrist:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sci_WFp8ec

    Wow, I have never found much of what MacArthur says as being consistently reformed or biblical, but he definitely has a lot of followers.

    Reply

    1. Walt, MacArthur grew up on the Scofield bible. He is the 5th pastor in a line of faithful pastors. He used to call himself a leaky dispensationalist. But, as the years went on, and because of his strong tie with Reformed guys like Sproul and Horton, I believe he has become more reformed. Walt, go to youtube and pull up ” Amazing sermon on election” John MacArthur. Let me know what you think. Its 15 minutes long. My Reformed friends tell me its the best sermon on election they have ever heard. Thanks for the link, im going to listen. K

       Reply

18. Walt, i listened to the MacArthur video, although I dont hold to his eschatology, it is fascinating though . Truly interesting. Helped me to understand the Muslim religion better. K

    Reply

19. Walt, wow, MacArthur sermon was powerful. Thanks for providing it. K

    Reply

20. Tim, I just jumped in to see if there was any feedback, but will be out much of this week. I intend to reply in due course. For clarification, I meant the words of Jesus were taken too literally. Sorry. You said:

    “I do not fully understand your statement that I have “taken each verse too literally and not figuratively.” In my exposition of Daniel 2, 7 and Revelation 12 and 13, I have understood the figures as expounded by the angelic narrators to represent logical propositional statements that can be understood, and those logical propositions have to be provided to us before we can understand the figures, and I believe the logical propositions can be understood by us. I do not believe Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was literally made out of gold, and I do not believe Alexander’s kingdom was literally a four-headed leopard. So I am not sure I understand the part of your critique where you say I have taken each verse too literally.”

    Yep, the words of Jesus. I posted a correction to the view by Pastor Price below in a sermon, but have not had a chance to read all your responses yet as I’m a bit pressed for time.

    Sorry I was not more clear. I did not expect you to think I thought you thought that the kingdom was made out of gold. I’m not that dense…although some my suggest it. 🙂

    Reply

21. Tim said ” I believe some of the Reformers thought they were bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth thru the reign of civil authority.” This is actually a profound statement and I think true. I believe this was leftover from Roman Catholicism. The RC church believes it is the reign of Christ on earth and its papacy claims the power of both swords. It is one reason I do not believe in the in the christianization of governments. God created these restrainers, but they are long since guided by sinful men. K

    Reply

22. Hi Tim, I was reading your post to Walt. Would it be fair to say, if I understood what you pointed out with scripture, is that Christ is ruling His church from heaven thru the Spirit ( ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one Spirit with Him”) but until His return He is not reigning in an earthly sense thru civil governments. We are taught to submit ourselves to earthly governments. Would I be right in saying that even if that government is corrupt that we are to submit like a slave to a master, unless it goes against the gospel. Am I correct in saying God’s itention was never to christianize institutions, since we have one mandate to reach the lost, the gospel. Would love your perspective. This last couple weeks of your articles has been flat out awesome. Thanks K

    Reply

23. Tim, scipture clearly teaches that we are the Temple of God. Iow, God destroyed the Temple, He doesnt dwell in buildings or on altars anymore, but in the hearts of his people. . Therefore how could he have established an earthly kingdom? Maybe Im confused ?

    Reply

24. Tim said,

    “Yes, for that is what the Scriptures appear to say. Until then, “we see not yet all things put under him”. I’ll be happy to entertain countervailing opinions based on the Scriptures, but I do not bend the knee to the tradition and magisterium of Scotland.”

    I do always get a chuckle out of people who always play the “bible only” card when they have source quoted more historical references than I’ve ever seen by almost any author. It does make me smile when the experts claim I never will bow my knee to tradition, and yet build their entire case upon their own tradition these past few years loaded with historical references to prove Scripture says what they say is says rather than using scripture alone to prove scripture.

    Reply

25. Walt, with all due respect, you have quoted more historical references from Scottish reformers than anyone here has quoted any other historical reference. Incidentally, in love I rebuke you because you ” have built your case on your own tradition” with historical references” Here is a footnote brother, the Reformers left Rome for thinking their magisterium was infalible. Log, splinter brother. In Christ Kevin

    Reply

26. Kevin said:

    “Walt, with all due respect, you have quoted more historical references from Scottish reformers than anyone here has quoted any other historical reference. Incidentally, in love I rebuke you because you ” have built your case on your own tradition” with historical references” Here is a footnote brother, the Reformers left Rome for thinking their magisterium was infalible. Log, splinter brother. In Christ Kevin”

    Where did I ever say that I believe only in using Scripture only as earthly authority? I’ve never said that, nor do I believe that is biblical. Even Scripture teaches that men have the authority to teach Scripture, and these men are not infallible, but they can be inerrant. Neh.8:8 & 12-13, Acts.8:30-31, Acts.17:11, Isa.34:16, Acts.18:26, Jn.5:39, 2Chron.17:9, Matt.11:1 are examples of men teaching or edifying, and these have authority. If one were to only read the Bible week after week in church, and not exemplify or explain the meaning they would be simply foolish unto many who do not understand.

    This whole concept that Tim is some sort of absolute gifted authority on prophetical interpretation is laughable to me claiming week after week he is the only one in history to use Scripture to interpret Scripture as the sole prince in this world, and all other men are in error on prophecy is silly. You certainly can believe everything he writes as the gospel truth, and buy into this mumbo jumbo that he is the only one in history who knows how to accurately interpret prophecy in the Scriptures. Buy into the smoke…do as you wish.

    However, don’t put me into the same category. I’m not called to be a teaching elder or ruling elder, and yet I believe that there is significant value that God has revealed to gifted men who have been called to preach and teach the law and the testimony in history. I believe in presbyterian government, presbyterian worship and in my terms of communion. While Scripture is the highest form of inspired testimony, there is significant value in subordinate testimony by men of God.

    Buy into all his “he is the only one in history” to have all the truth on prophecy, and he stands alone against all the ministers and courts in history mumbo jumbo as the sole proper interpreter of Scripture. That is implied in many of his comments and his blog posts…he is not so brash to make these bold states literally, but clearly it is implied in his writings he is the only man to have been given this knowledge from God in the history of mankind on these subjects of prophecy.

    You buy into his “sole authority” of Scripture argument, that is up to you. I’m not convinced. Arguing that I am saying that I am the only one who is claiming Scripture alone is foolish as I firmly believe in subordinate testimony and historical testimony as being a revelation of God…and it can be inerrant.

    Tim is not the only one who claims to be inerrant. There is other testimony from gifted ministers who claim that what they say is the truth using Scripture alone.

    Reply

    1. Walt wrote,

       “This whole concept that Tim is some sort of absolute gifted authority on prophetical interpretation is laughable to me…”

       It is laughable to me, too, and I would never claim such a thing.

       But I do believe that in the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7, there are two judicial movements described, and to miss that is to give ground to antichrist as Elliott and many others have done, including the Scottish Covenanters. I do not believe we should give ground to antichrist. I agree with the Scottish Covenanters and their identification of the antichrist, but I do not agree with the dating of his rise. I do not believe an 800 A.D. rise of antichrist should be a condition of fellowship with other believers. I also believe that there are ten horns enumerated in Daniel 7 and there are three horns removed in Daniel 7 and yet in Revelation 12, 13 and 17, there are still ten horns depicted to rally with the Little Horn, the Beast, at the end. It is therefore inconsistent with Scripture to claim that the three horns uprooted in Daniel 7 are “three of the ten,” for Scripture does not say or imply it, and such a claim creates an inconsistency that gives the appearance of contradiction in God’s Word. I cannot help that neither the early church nor the reformers have dealt with that inconsistency, but I believe the inconsistency should be corrected with Scripture. Overlooking that inconsistency, good men like Elliott have missed the 13-way division of the Roman Empire in the late 4th century, the inflection point to which Daniel pointed in order to aid us in identifying Antichrist, the successor to the Roman Empire. In his fallible tradition, Elliott has pushed the rise of antichrist 400 years into the future, and called the first 400 years of Antichrist’s reign the earthly reign of Christ, as if Christ’s church was to be the successor of the Roman empire. The Scriptures do not teach that, but Elliott insists that it is so. I cannot in good conscience affirm as inerrant the teachings of a man who calls Antichrist the Bride of Christ, and yet Elliott, in ignorance, has done so. I appreciate his work and his stand for Christ, but I do not agree with his eschatology.

       You continued,

       “…claiming week after week he is the only one in history to use Scripture to interpret Scripture…”

       As you yourself acknowledge explicitly, I have never done this.

       “… as the sole prince in this world…”

       I don’t know what that means.

       “…and all other men are in error on prophecy is silly.”

       Silly, too, I think, to say that the earth orbits the sun after 1,400 years of scientific consensus that it does not. Majority opinion is not inherently theópneustos and does not bind the conscience of man.

       Walt, since the interpretations of the Covenanters can and do contradict each other, how do you choose between one interpretation and another without judging that one is true and one is false?

       “…he is not so brash to make these bold states literally…”

       Thank you.

       “Tim is not the only one who claims to be inerrant.”

       Tim does not claim to be inerrant. Tim also does not demand submission to his teachings as a condition of fellowship.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

27. Walt, im not here to defend Tim, he can do that himself. I didnt even mention his name. This is about you brother. Because Someone might have a different position than the Scottish reformers doesnt mean they have ignored their position, or gone at it ” bible only.” Who ever said there isnt ” significant value in subbordinate testimony ofvmen of God” no one. Walt, you are wrong acusing me or anyone here of buying into ” his sole authority.” He hasnt claimed to be inerrant. You have falsely acused your brother. Listen brother, you have said you have been rebuked by your own church about being here, and yet you come back week after week. Your wouldnt be here if you didnt believe that Tim was making an honest exegetical and traditional approach to eschatology. Walt, in love brother, allow someone to cometo a different conclusion without impugning them. You have the freedom of conscience not to believe it. The very thing Luther fought for, that only God can bind a man’s conscience in the end. God bless brother. K

    Reply

28. Tim said:

    “I do not believe an 800 A.D. rise of antichrist should be a condition of fellowship with other believers.”

    Who on earth ever said this…it is not even in any of our Terms of Communion, nor in any of the Westminster Standards?

    Please be specific in your accusation.

    Reply

    1. Sorry, Walt,

       I should be more specific. I used the date as an example of what I see to be a larger problem. If I propose a fourth century date for the rise of anti-Christ, I am required according to your tradition to come up with at least two second Reformation witnesses to concur with my assessment. Without that I cannot prove to your satisfaction a fourth century date for the rise of anti-Christ. Since your traditions are revelatory in nature, and they do not contain evidence for a fourth century rise of anti-Christ, there is no way that you could maintain fellowship with me because I would be rejecting what you consider to be revelation from God, and the revelation you have from God does not allow for a late 4th-century rise of anti-Christ.

       That said, the net effect of your tradition is that you are constrained to deny as an article of faith something that actually can be proven to be true from the Scriptures. That is what it means to nullify the word of God with your traditions.

       I believe that you have erected the church of Scotland as a barrier between people and God, and you require people to assent to your traditions and your magisterium as a condition of fellowship, which seems to me to make the church a mediator between God and man. Perhaps I am mistaken in this, but from the outside looking in it looks like I cannot gain access to what you call “the truth” unless I first give credence to the traditions and the magisterium. As I am unwilling to give credence to the traditions and the magisterium, that unwillingness would probably give you cause to cease fellowship with me. In fact, I gather that if I did affirm your terms of communion, but maintained my position that anti-Christ arose late in the fourth century, the church of Scotland would consider it appropriate to apply to the civil authority to have me constrained.

       I’m probably misreading your understanding of the terms of communion, but it just seems to me that a basic unwillingness to affirm your traditions and your magisterium is probably enough to cause a break in our fellowship.

       You can correct me if I’m wrong on that. It just seems to me that that is a logical implication of your position.

       Tim

       Reply

29. Tim, what does inheriting or not inheriting earthly kingdom entail? Does this mean Christ isnt a king of civil governments in the sense His desire now is not to rule through them? My view is God has set up certain institutions as restrainers in this world, government, family, etc, but those institutions are run by corrupted men. Can you please flesh this out for me. Thanks Kevin

    Reply

    1. Kevin, I’ll get into this on more detail later, but here is a timeline that might be helpful for the purposes of an overview:

       From the Perspective of Daniel 2, 7 and 8, here is how I see the unfolding of history since Nebuchadnezzar:

       605-538 B.C. Babylonian Empire (Gold, Lion)

       538-330 B.C. Medo-Persian Empire (Silver, Bear, Ram)

       330-323 B.C. United Greek empire (Brass, He-Goat, Notable horn of the He-Goat)

       323-44 B.C. Divided Greek empire (Brass, Four-headed Leopard, He-goat, Four horns of the He-Goat)
            175 – 163 B.C. (Little Horn of Daniel 8)
            170-164 B.C. 2,300 literal days
            167-164 B.C. 1,290 literal days, then another 45 to get to 1,335 days, cessation of sacrifices, Abomination of Desolation (Statue of Jupiter) in the Temple

       44 B.C. – 69 A.D. Strong Roman Empire (Iron, Fourth Beast—all emperors related to or descending from Julius)
            40 A.D. return of the Statue of Jupiter, standing “in the holy place” or “where it ought not” (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14), as a harbinger of Jerusalem’s destruction

       69-293 A.D. Partly Strong but partly weak empire (Iron and Clay feet, Fourth Beast, emperors come from both commoners and aristocracy, and “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men” (Daniel 2:43))

       293 – 382 A.D. Partly Strong and Partly broken: Iron and Clay Toes (Formation of the Toes, emergence of the Horns)

       382 – 395 A.D. Emergence of the Little Horn (Subjection of Milan, Alexandria and Antioch, or the three dioceses of Italy, Egypt and Oriens to the Little Horn of Daniel 9, i.e., the Three Petrine Sees), but Little Horn does not yet claim civil power of the sword

       395 – 1655 A.D. Little Horn takes civil dominion, claiming power of the Sword
            1,260 years Perseverance of the Vaudois in the Alpine Valleys
            1,260 years when the Little Horn “shall wear out the saints of the most High”
            1,260 years during which the Beast is free to “continue” (literally ‘do’) for “forty and two months” (Revelation 13:5).
            1,260 years when the Beast is given “to make war with the saints, and to overcome them:” (Revelation 13:7)
            1,260 years when the Woman “is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Revelation 12:14).

       1655 A.D. Brutal Massacre of the Waldensians in the Alps; survivors relocated throughout Europe. Little Horn reduced back to his pre-395 A.D. dominions, and finally abandons use of Papal civil and Papal military power to coerce. Sudden rapid decline of Papal influence in Europe.

       I’ll provide more of the details later—especially regarding the Vaudois—but what also goes on in parallel with this history is the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls as I expounded in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia, The Trumpets and Bowls. By my reckoning all 7 seals are behind us, as are 6 out of seven Trumpets and 5 out of 7 Bowls, although there is a possibility that we are in the middle of the 6th Bowl.

       In all of this, and in light of Daniel and Revelation, I just don’t see a period prophesied when the Church has civil powers on earth until Christ returns. Perhaps someone can persuade me otherwise using the Scriptures. I do not yet have eyes to see it.

       I hope that helps.

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim, Phenominal summation. Extremely helpful to me. Thanks for taking the time. Im actually going to try to write this down. Paul said it is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners. That happens thru the gospel which the church as minister passes on, not thru coercion and oppression by the church via the civil sword. Galatians 5: 1 ” For it was for freedom Christ set us free.” Persecution thru the church didnt stop voluntarily, but because temporal power was taken away. We should never forget that. K

          Reply

       2. Really helpful to see that in a table. Thx.

          Reply

30. Tim, i worded my question wrong. Christ has no present earthly dominion. Iow, the church has no earthly doninion? Antichrist has earthly dominion now ? Christ is ruling his church from heaven thru the Spirit. Does this mean He is king of His church but isnt a visible king in the presence of a visible institution or thru a civil government ? Iow Christ isnt ruking thru earthly kings, but rules his church from hrmeaven? Im not sure all of your readers may understand this. I mean I think I have an idea, but not completely. MacArthur says when Christ said my kingdom isnt of this world, it proves everytime there has been a conflation of church and government in the history of world it didnt go well. Allways corruption and power. But He says the U.S. is the first composite society in history where there is eeparation of church and state and men ate free in Christ, where only God binds men’s conscience. Ive been studying this stuff pretty hard. I believe im historic premill. I think you have the rise of antichrist pegged, and as far as im concerned you have done a good job presenting your case. Thanks for any response you can give me, or some of us who are digging to understand this. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin, your summary is what I believe to be true:

       “Christ is ruling His church from heaven thru the Spirit. …He is King of His church but isnt a visible king in the presence of a visible institution or thru a civil government”.

       We are on earth, but our citizenship is in heaven.

       I think great errors crept into the church when men mistakenly believed that Jesus had established His Church as an earthly kingdom, authorizing them to effect orthodoxy and orthopraxy through coercion by the “sword” of the civil power. As history has long proven, coercion by civil authority—torture, imprisonment and capital punishment—has a tendency to keep error in the church rather than to keep the church pure from error through the foolishness of preaching and church discipline.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim, thanks for your response brother, I couldnt be more in agreement with you. I have carefully read every article for 2 years on your position on eschatology, with only concern that it is proved from our sacred scriptures. I believe you have proved it. K

          Reply

31. Tim wrote:

    ” If I propose a fourth century date for the rise of anti-Christ, I am required according to your tradition to come up with at least two second Reformation witnesses to concur with my assessment. Without that I cannot prove to your satisfaction a fourth century date for the rise of anti-Christ. Since your traditions are revelatory in nature, and they do not contain evidence for a fourth century rise of anti-Christ, there is no way that you could maintain fellowship with me because I would be rejecting what you consider to be revelation from God, and the revelation you have from God does not allow for a late 4th-century rise of anti-Christ.”

    This statement is not only untrue, it is offensive since it leads the reader to believe that not only do I believe tradition exceeds Scripture proof, but that I believe that it takes two reformation witnesses to declare prophecy true. These assertions are not what I believe, nor what I teach to others. In fact, they are highly deceptive to the casual reader.

    I have defended your theory about a 4th century early date establishing antichrist, and have publicly (and privately to others) declared that I believe there is both biblical and historical testimony supporting your assertions. While I believe the same exists for an 800AD date using Scripture and historical testimony, I have never claimed because two reformers did not approve your early date was the reason I rejected your early date.

    Secondly, I have made it clear that I believe Scripture is the primary standard, and historical testimony is a secondary standard. To imply otherwise is a false assertion.

    You clearly believe that since Christ’s ascension into heaven He literally has no earthy reign until He returns on a white horse with a rod of Iron at His second coming. I reject this teaching as do the reformers. This has nothing to do that I support “tradition only” as my primary standard.

    What I intend to say is that I reject as biblical the Tim Kauffman “tradition” (false teaching per Colossians 2:8) that he espouses over these past few years on prophecy and Christ’s reign on earth, and rather support the reformed, biblical “tradition” that Paul asks us to follow (1 Corinthians 11:2, 23, 15:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). In Luke 1:2 the eyewitnesses of Christ were aides and helps to those who did not believe yet without the entire written scriptures. This “tradition” of the eyewitnesses was valid to believe in the resurrection and bodily ascension of Christ, the Messiah.

    I believe to be faithful the “tradition” below written by Minister Gillespie, and reject YOUR teachings on worship, form of government, the validity of our Covenanter, Presbyterian Terms of Communion, and your despising the significant gains made in the second reformation against Popery and Prelacy.

    “That it is their duty, without respect of persons, to endeavour the extirpation of Heresy and Schism, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness, lest they partake in other mens sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three kingdoms: And to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of Religion, or making any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to the solemn League and Covenant, that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, &c.

    Which as they had great reason to swear and covenant, so now they have greater reason to perform accordingly; and as it is in itself a duty, and we tied to it by the oath of God, and his vows that are upon us, as straitly as ever the sacrifice to the horns of the altar. So we are to take special notice of the unhappy consequents which follow upon our slackness, slowness, and slothfulness, in fulfilling that sacred Oath, viz.

    ***The hindering of uniformity, the continuing and increasing of a rupture both in Church and State, the retarding of Reformation, the spreading and multiplying of Heresies and Sects, while every one doth what is right in his own eyes; the great scandal given both to enemies and friends: to enemies, who are made to think worse of our Covenant, because we do not perform it: The Review of the Covenant, printed at Oxford, upbraideth us with this: that Heresy and Schism was never more suffered, and less suppressed in London, than since we sware to endeavour the extirpation of the same: To friends also, who are mightily stumbled by our promising so much, and performing so little in this kind:*** which the Wallachian Classis in their late Letter to the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster (printed before Apollonius his Book) doth sadly and seriously lay to our consciences. (George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty Or, The true Resolution of a present Controversy concerning Liberty of Conscience, 1644).”

    Your personal “tradition” that you hold within your own family about doctrine, discipline, form of worship, form of government is what separates us. I do not separate myself from anyone over eschatology as it is an unsettled matter by any lawful, biblical church court. The Westminster Assembly did not settle the controversy, nor did the Church of Scotland, nor any other faithful court that I’m aware.

    In fact, it is not even mentioned in our Terms of Communion, and is no cause for separation by anyone I know of within any second reformation authors I’ve read, nor modern day ministers. There are plenty of other things that separate us, but eschatology is not one of them.

    Reply

    1. I meant no offense, Walt. I thought I was simply restating your expressed position. You wrote at an earlier time, in response to my comments on Daniel,

       “I’ll be reviewing it from my hotel room, but likely will stay in the background continuing my study until I can find two or more witnesses to help me through where you differ (at what points) to the reformed theologians and scholars and ministers. I’m still wondering why they did not see it, or write about it…but it is good that I have not found where they WROTE AGAINST IT. Sometimes if they did not see it then they did not seek to rebuke it, and therefore the evidence is that they did not consider it. This can be as important as anything in my mind.”

       That sounds very much to me like what I described, i.e., that I am required by your tradition “to come up with at least two second Reformation witnesses to concur with my assessment” before you can agree with it. In other words, you are not free to arrive at the truth apart from the interpretation of Scottish tradition and the courts. What that approach does not consider—and in fact cannot consider—is the possibility that the second reformation got something wrong, as I believe they did. If they were wrong, and I point it out, your tradition will keep you from discovering the truth because you must first find two second reformation witnesses who agreed that their own interpretation was in fact wrong, something they will never do. That essentially traps you within a system of belief, and prevents you from ever arriving at the truth. I think the second reformation ministers got some things right. I think they got some things wrong. I don’t think a single one of them ever even entertained the possibility that the fragmentation of the Roman empire, as prophesied by Daniel, took place in the latter part of the 4th century with the 13-way division of the empire. They were, based on tradition, looking for a 10-way divisions. Thus, you will never find a second reformation writer who even acknowledges the possibility of a 4th century fragmentation, and therefore no second reformation writer who can acknowledge that antichrist arose during the latter part of the 4th century, and therefore no second reformation writer who will agree that what Protestants have often called “the church” from 395-800 A.D. was actually the first 405 years of antichrist’s 1,260 years of domination, while the true church was doctrinally safe, though physically persecuted, in the valleys of the Alps. You can never arrive at that conclusion because the second reformation writers were not even aware of the significance of the 13-way division of the empire because they maintained an ancient tradition that three of the horns removed by antichrist were “three of the ten,” something the Scriptures do not say.

       If I have misunderstood your position, I can only ask that you help me understand what it is. From your words above, my summary of your position seems to be objective and fair. If you cannot consider a scriptural argument without consulting the second reformation writers to see if they agreed, you seem to me to be in no different position than the followers of E. G. White who must consult the writings of their foundress to see if she agreed. Such an approach gives lip service to the primacy of Scripture while in practice elevating traditions to the level of revelation. Again, if I have misunderstood you, please help me understand. Perhaps you can explain the problem of the extra three horns from the Scriptures as I have attempted to do, without cutting and pasting from the second reformation library.

       My Scriptural argument is quite simple:

       The Four Beasts of Daniel 7 are all shown in their final configuration as can be proved by inspection.
       The final configuration of the Fourth Beast is ten horns (Daniel 7:7)
       Three horns fell, were uprooted or were subdued (Daniel 7:8, 20, 24)
       Yet at the end ten horns still remain to side with the beast and make war agains the Lamb (Revelation 12:3, 13:1, 17:3, 7, 12)
       Therefore, the three that were removed were not three of the ten, but rather three of the thirteen, such that the Little Horn could come up among ten that receive power with the beast (Revelation 17:12), give their strength and power to the beast (Revelation 17:13) and turn on the beast (Revelation 17:16), and give their kingdom to the beast (Revelation 17:17)

       Since there are ten in the final configuration, but three are removed, and yet ten remain, leaving ten to align with the beast, and since Daniel never said “three of the ten” fell, were uprooted or were subdued, it is clear that the little horn uprooted three of the 13, and then grew up among the remaining 10 being more stout than his fellows (Daniel 7:20). Thus, there must have been a total of 13 horns.

       Now, using Scriptures and without invoking the writers of the Second Reformation, what fault do you find with that exegesis? Why, in your opinion, is it not true, and by what means do you reconcile the discrepancy of there being three horns too many at the end without relying on tradition?

       Finally, I am having difficulty understanding the following paragraph:

       “Your personal “tradition” that you hold within your own family about doctrine, discipline, form of worship, form of government is what separates us. I do not separate myself from anyone over eschatology as it is an unsettled matter by any lawful, biblical church court.”

       It seems that eschatology is in fact a cause of disfellowship since you have called me a false teacher regarding prophecy, and so you say, I have falsely claimed to be an “absolute gifted authority on prophetical interpretation,” and falsely claimed to be “the only one in history to use Scripture to interpret Scripture as the sole prince in this world” and that I am “the only one in history who knows how to accurately interpret prophecy in the Scriptures,” and that I am “the only one in history” to have all the truth on prophecy,” and that I am “the sole proper interpreter of Scripture” and that I am “the only man to have been given this knowledge from God in the history of mankind on these subjects of prophecy.” You may note that of those things you say I have claimed about myself, only one is something that I have actually claimed: that I am willing to stand alone against the tradition of the Second Reformation because I think they got it wrong. There are worse things of which to be guilty and I gladly accept that last accusation. But as you yourself have acknowledged, Tim “is not so brash to make these bold statements literally.” That is true. I don’t even believe “these bold statements.” All men are made in the image of God and all men have access to the same scriptures I do. There is no special revelation here, and nothing special about me. But I will not bow in fear and abject submission to the Second Reformation. They were mere men, and subject to error and carnality, even error and carnality that masquerades as the high watermark of the reformation.

       My belief is that we (Second Reformation included) have missed something important in the text by importing our traditions and assumptions into it, and we may find the truth only when we set aside our traditions and assumptions. Your ad hominem invective in your response is simply evidence of your ecclesiolatry. To disparage such criticism of the Second Reformation on the basis that the criticism allegedly implies that I am “the only man to have been given this knowledge from God in the history of mankind on these subjects of prophecy,” suggests to me that I have struck to close to the bone, and what you have falsely ascribed to me is what you actually believe to be true about the Second Reformation. Am I wrong on that?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

    2. Walt, I’ll also highlight this statement as well. After I made a specific case from the Scriptures a while back, you responded,

       “If you have support from other ministers on it, and no contradiction from great ministers, I think you have something.”

       I don’t believe I have to establish support from other ministers without contradiction in order to show something to be true. I hope you can see why I summarized your position the way I did. It very much appears to elevate traditional interpretations of men above that which can be logically deduced from the Scriptures.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

32. Walt, If it isnt cause of separation, why has your church told you to separate from this site ? You dont attend church with any of us. If this position of eschatology isnt a cause for separation, the why is your church rebuking you? You talk out of both sides of your mouth brother. You are in disobedience to your magisterium according to you, so why are you here? I say this to you in great love, everytime you have been confronted on this site, you are unrepentant. You have made unfounded acusations to many on this site. Perspective starts from the beginning, your acusations. Dan has gently rebuked you, and now have I. Thats all ill say Walt. In Christ Kevin

    Reply

33. Tim, you wrote:

    “That sounds very much to me like what I described, i.e., that I am required by your tradition “to come up with at least two second Reformation witnesses to concur with my assessment” before you can agree with it. In other words, you are not free to arrive at the truth apart from the interpretation of Scottish tradition and the courts.”

    Tim, please re-read it. I never said in the quote you gave that I needed two witnesses to believe “my tradition” as you claim. Your twisting what I’m saying. I said I was going to look for two or more witnesses in my studies of the topic, and obviously I concluded that if I did not find any others that believe what you believe if they did not teach against your views that could be equally as helpful to me.

    You are a tradition unto yourself, and you live by your own tradition. The more I read your commentaries the past few days it is becoming clearly obvious to me you are no Presbyterian, but are a pure independent. The independents always love to play the tradition card against Presbyterians, Catholics, Anglican’s, etc. It is much more clear for me now over the past few days since reading your typical independent dispensational presentation.

    I wrote:

    “If you have support from other ministers on it, and no contradiction from great ministers, I think you have something.”

    Yes, I said support which is very common in Presbyterian government. In our judicial court system, we look (as Rutherford and Gillespie argued) to four stages of appeals and no level beyond the local session like independents. Thus, we can appeal to precedence of higher courts in our judicial pleadings of case law for support of our opinions as lay members of the church. If the Elders rule against us at the Session level, we can appeal to a higher court at the Presbytery, then the Synod and finally the General Assembly. This process was hated by the independents because they argued it is all Roman Catholic type tradition leading up the latter through these courts, and they were “bible alone” Christians. The Anabaptists were the worst to set in motion this view and today our entire Christian church is splintered into tens of thousands of independent denominations.

    Our presuppositions are so far separated from what I mean by what I say that it is not worth continuing this dialogue with you on my “tradition” vs. your “bible only” arguments. Waste of my time and yours.

    Kevin, I did not intend to respond to your remarks, but you too misunderstood my past comments. I’m not banned from this site by my Pastor. In fact, he encouraged me to continue learning these controversial prophetical issues, and has himself agreed to spend weeks to review Tim’s posts. I heard a sermon where he made a statement that I felt the Lord used His warning to me to be careful not to be deceived with Tim’s commentaries. I took it as a warning to me, but after asking him about it he said it was nothing that was targeted at me as I assumed, and thus my concerns were not warranted outside of what the Lord might have been speaking to me in my heart.

    Thus, you can retract all this constant talk about me by rebuked by our church. It is a non-issue what I do here, and I have liberty to discuss these controverted ideas since they are unsettled in history of the Church.

    Reply

    1. Walt, this is what I do not understand about your position. First, you wrote to me some time ago about an eschatological interpretation:

       “If you have support from other ministers on it, and no contradiction from great ministers, I think you have something.”

       And today you defended the statement:

       Yes, I said support which is very common in Presbyterian government. In our judicial court system, we look (as Rutherford and Gillespie argued) to four stages of appeals and no level beyond the local session like independents. Thus, we can appeal to precedence of higher courts in our judicial pleadings of case law for support of our opinions as lay members of the church.

       Yet you acknowledge that the Presbyterian government has never ruled on eschatology. As you have said, eschatology is…

       “…an unsettled matter by any lawful, biblical church court.”

       As such, you do not need support from multiple Second Reformation witnesses on matters of eschatology. And yet on two separate occasions, on matters of eschatology in which I reasoned solely from the Scriptures, you turned to great ministers of the Second Reformation to see if these things were so. And keep in mind, I don’t deny that they were great ministers. I enjoy their writings and I appreciate that you have brought them here and introduced me to them. But the Bereans did not search the traditions to find if these things were so (Acts 17:11). They searched the Scriptures.

       In any case, I’ll take the following words as representative of your true conviction regarding the primacy of Scripture:

       “This statement is not only untrue, it is offensive since it leads the reader to believe that not only do I believe tradition exceeds Scripture proof, but that I believe that it takes two reformation witnesses to declare prophecy true. These assertions are not what I believe, nor what I teach to others. In fact, they are highly deceptive to the casual reader.”

       I’ll also take as your true conviction that appealing to the courts is standard in Presbyterian government and further that eschatology has never been a settled matter in the courts.

       Can you at least see why it appears inconsistent to me for you to seek two Second Reformation witnesses on a matter of eschatology while at the same time insisting that eschatology is not a settled matter and therefore there is no established Second Reformation opinion to which you can appeal? I agree that you do not believe “that it takes two reformation witnesses to declare prophecy true.” That statement however does not appear to be consistent with your words, “If you have support from other ministers on it, and no contradiction from great ministers, I think you have something.” We were, after all, discussing a matter of prophecy and eschatology.

       That said, do you have any thoughts on the problem of the three extra horns at the end?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

34. Tim said:

    “But as you yourself have acknowledged, Tim “is not so brash to make these bold statements literally.” That is true. I don’t even believe “these bold statements.” All men are made in the image of God and all men have access to the same scriptures I do. There is no special revelation here, and nothing special about me. But I will not bow in fear and abject submission to the Second Reformation. They were mere men, and subject to error and carnality, even error and carnality that masquerades as the high watermark of the reformation.”

    Of course, this is why you reject many of the doctrines of the second reformation. You are an independent not a reformed Presbyterian. You reject the regulative principle. You reject occasional hearing. You reject the Terms of Communion. You reject exclusive psalmody. You celebrate Christmas and other Romish holy days. These are all “traditions” to you and as an independent you reject these settled doctrines as they are were settled by “mere men, and subject to error and carnality, even error and carnality that masquerades as the high watermark of the reformation.”

    I get it Tim. It is becoming crystal clear to me now.

    Reply

35. In 1899, the General Assembly of the PCUS was overtured to give a “pronounced and explicit deliverance” against the recognition of “Christmas and Easter as religious days.” Even at this late date, the answer came back in a solid manner: “There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holydays, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Kevin Reed, Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins and Opposition to It (Free Online Book)

    Reply

36. “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, http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/christmas.htm?utm_source=Arminianism+In+Worship+Is+Idolatry%2C+Free&utm_campaign=SWRB-EMAIL-ArminInWorHeresy-Dec23-2015&utm_medium=email

    Reply

37. It is commonly objected, that we may as well keep a day for the nativity, as for the resurrection of Christ. We have answered already, that Christ’s Day, or the Lord’s Day, is the day appointed for remembrance of his nativity, and all his actions and benefits, as well as for the resurrection. – David Calderwood (Covenanter)

    Reply

38. Walt, the WCF is clear, the rule of faith and the deposit of faith are the same thing, scripture. Tradition is scripture. With all due respect, Tim is not a tradition unto himself. But it is clear to me ,brother, you remained in Rome, because you bow the knee to your infalible magisterium, it just has a different name. All the best K

    Reply

39. Wlat, thanks for explaining that to me. It seemed to me you were warned by your church not to here these things and to separate yourself . Now that you explained it, I do retract what I said. K

    Reply

40. Walt, i actually am coming around to the point where im wondering about Christmas. I do feel like it is celebrating his bday like a king or pharoh. I just wonder if I can not celebrate it in my heart but do the family thing. I mean, if you think about it, we should worship Christ everyday with all heart soul mind. Thats what the 25th of December is for me, another day to worship God, not celbrate His birthday. Your thoughts Walt?

    Reply

41. Why not celebrate Jesus birthday as if he is a king?
    He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
    And why not celebrate it at the time of Yule?
    It replaces a counterfeit festival with the genuine article of the Incarnation of God Himself.

    Reply

42. Walt provided ” The regulative principle of Worship and Christmas” Walt, I appreciate this quote, but infant baptism is mentioned nowhere in Scripture, so why is it not a violation of the Reformed regulative principle of worship strictly speaking? And the Sabbath day was changed in the early church, was it not? As I work thru these things I’m concerned for consistency. Thanks K

    Reply

43. Tim said ” the Augustine consensus was born” Yes and I believe in your post to Bob lies the truth of ” my kingdom is not of the is world.” And every time the church, Catholic or Protestant, has made the grave error of thinking it’s call was to discharge Christ’s reign through civil authorities forcing Christian orthodoxy on men who were unregenerate, or the persecution of those like the Reformers by the Catholic church, or the Anabaptists by the Reformed church for not believing certain Christian doctrines was not what God intended. He intended the church to preach the gospel and teach the Law, not to punish, coerce, kill men who rejected religion. Certainly God gave the restrainers of government to enforce civil law, but that is not the call of the church. Im thankful that I have the freedom in this country to believe or not believe in infant baptism, credo baptism, view of the Eucharist, or any other religion. The U.S. is a model for the first composite society that has actually believed that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Calvin and the Reformers did much to contribute to free societies, yet the very thing Luther defended from Rome, liberty of conscience, later he was a victim of the old dreggs, and the darkness of Romanism and the state carried over. K

    Reply

44. In Catholic doctrine to this day, the pope claims the power of both swords, civil and ecclesial. And Catholics MUST assent to this doctrine to be saved at the risk of expulsion for not assenting to it. He is basically King of the World according to Roman Catholic doctrine. He answers to no one and is incapalbe of repenting. The book of Concord calls him Antichrist, with his tyrannical, ruinous laws outside of the word of God. Those who disagreed with him were hunted down and killed all for the sake of the papacy and its earthly pagan satanic kingdom. It i a human institution controlled by satan that should never be confused with the kingdom of heaven. It indeed claims civil authority for itself, accountable to no one. So lets review, it preaches the gospel of ” go out and do your part”, it has an idolatrous bread god, and it has historically forced its religion on Christians to the point of death. Could we call this perspicuous. I think so. I hope RC lurkers here will consider reading biblical revelation instead of Roman Catholic reversed history. Because they will discover what Tim has uncovered here thru his exegesis on biblical revelation, that Romansim claims to be the true church that received the kingdom and dominion from the Roman Empire that took over the whole world just when the bible said it was Antichrist that took earthly dominion from the Roman Empire and took over the world, and the true church received a heavenly kingdom. Romanism has bewitched the gullible world. K

    Reply

45. Tim said:

    “Can you at least see why it appears inconsistent to me for you to seek two Second Reformation witnesses on a matter of eschatology while at the same time insisting that eschatology is not a settled matter and therefore there is no established Second Reformation opinion to which you can appeal? I agree that you do not believe “that it takes two reformation witnesses to declare prophecy true.” That statement however does not appear to be consistent with your words, “If you have support from other ministers on it, and no contradiction from great ministers, I think you have something.” We were, after all, discussing a matter of prophecy and eschatology.”

    It is wasting our time to continue splitting hairs over what it means to consult other ministers on the subject of prophecy. You imply you are the only one who reasons from the Scriptures alone, and your opinion is somehow not “tradition”, but all the other ministers in the world who reason from Scriptures are “tradition” and not scripture. Very strange Tim that you see your “bible only” position as the only one in history of ministerial testimony that is somehow not tradition, but if I reason to find others who agree with you them I am only chasing tradition. My brain hurts on your reasoning.

    “And yet on two separate occasions, on matters of eschatology in which I reasoned solely from the Scriptures, you turned to great ministers of the Second Reformation to see if these things were so.”

    I’m certain in your mind that you are the only person who has ever really used the Scriptures to reason the truth, and that great ministers have only offered tradition, but my point in studying (or looking for) some sort of complimentary support for your views, or equally any minister that did not rebuke your views, was to compare your tradition with their tradition.

    Yes, I know, you are very clear. You don’t ever use tradition, you only with the Bible in your opinions, and that while the rest of the ministers in the world use only tradition, and you use only the bible only, then I should not be looking to them for the truth, but to your opinion and bible reasoning for the truth. They are tradition, you are bible only.

    I get the point. My point is that on a very broad and general view I was researching just to see if ANYONE in history took the same view as you (I know you don’t have a view but have Bible only) or was opposed to your “bible only” view.

    So far I have not found anyone so you are indeed safe that you are the only one in history (so far that have found) that is what your followers can term as “Tim, the only Bible Only author outside of Scripture itself” with no tradition…but in fact is inspired by the Holy Spirit to be the one and only arbiter of truth using Scripture alone. All ministers in history are tradition alone.

    Got it. Good thing you were not on the floor of the General Assembly in Scotland, nor at Westminster arguing your “bible only” views and rejecting all your peers as “tradition only” positions on doctrine, discipline, worship and government. I suspect you would have been parked right into the Anabaptist camp with the rest of them arguing the same views, and rejecting all “tradition” as being Roman Catholic except themselves…loading up the world with their own traditions.

    Reply

46. Walt said ” you imply that you are the only one who reasons from scripture alone” Where has he ever implied that he is the only one who reasons from scriptures from alone? Another false Walt accusation. Where has he implied that all other ministers in the world who reason from scripture are tradition? You know whats “strange” Walt, is here if someone disagrees with your position you attack with ad hominem attacks, and frankly you are a unrepentant man. Your sweeping accusations against brothers should be what your church confronts you on. Where has he ever considered his position “ministerial” ? He isn’t a minister of a church. He told you that. He is an apologist, and yet you are holding him to magisterial approval. Your issue is this ” and if i reason to find others to agree with you than I’m only chasing tradition” This is amazing. I read every post here, he has never said that to you. Perspective starts from the beginning. You have accused a brother shunning his tradition. On numerous occasions you have said he isn’t Presbyterian, and hoisted many labels on him, as you have done to many true believers of the gospel of Christ. You have foisted your mishna on me. Here is a question Walt, if Eschatology is an open in WCF, and Tim is writing a book with his site on Eschatology, exactly what is your complaint. He is not in moral violation in his church, or preaching against Reformed doctrine. But you insist He is to be under some standard that you have decided he is accountable to. Thats the only strange thing here. I agree with Tim, your underpinnings, not just eschatological, but your eclessiaolatry has been exposed to yourself, and I think you see it.. I say this to you brother in great love of Christ. You have been extremely helpful to me in my tremendous appreciation for the Scottish Reformers. And you have a big heart for scripture Walt. Stop the nonsense. K

    Reply

47. Merry Christmas, Ya’ll!
    You, too, Walt.

    Reply

48. Tim, 1 Corinthians 15 says when Jesus delivers up the kingdom in the end . He will have will have put down all rule, power and authority. The fact that He has to put it down seems to me that although God has created these put these restrainers in place ( God raises up leaders and brings them down), they have been given over( allowed) to Satan’s earthly reign. Is this a reasonable description?

    Reply

49. Tim and Kevin,

    The failure of the reformers to distinguish between direct and indirect theocracies has been catastrophic. It would be a mistake to take the reformation position of establishmentarianism. That position affirms the need to criminalize violation of the first and second table of the law. The rationale is that civil governors are to be “nursing fathers” to the true religion:

    23 Kings shall be your foster fathers, And their queens your nursing mothers; They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD, For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.” (Isa. 49:23 NKJ)

    This doctrine is found in the Westminster Standards:

    WCF 20.4 And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church, [and by the power or the civil magistrate]. (WCF 20:4 WCS)

    WCF 23.3 The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemes and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. (WCF 23:3 WCS)

    WCF 31.2 [As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so if magistrates be open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies. ] (WCF 31:2 WCS)

    WLC 191 What do we pray for in the second petition? A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends. (WLC 1:191 WCS)

    Establishmentarianism insists on the right of kings to interfere with the church and the right of kings to uphold the first and 2nd table of the law to which the church may appeal. Therefore there ought to be a law against, heresy, blasphemy, idolatry and Sabbath breaking. This introduced a clear and contradictory tension into the standards. This is seen when we compare the above passages with the following:

    WCF 23.3 The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority… (WCF 23:3 WCS)

    WCF 25.6 There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God. ] (WCF 25:6 WCS)

    WCF 25.2 The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25:2 WCS)

    WCF 30.1 The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. (WCF 30:1 WCS)

    WCF 30.4 For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person. (WCF 30:4 WCS)

    If the catholic church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ and a distinct government, made up of ordained judicatory whereby they are forbidden the use of any civil penalties but only spiritual penalties for sin, HOW can the civil magistrate, who is only a MEMBER and not a ruler in the church call a synod? Why was there this inherent confusion and contradiction.

    American Presbyterian leaders dealt with this by revising the confession whereupon they struck all mention of an intermixing of civil and ecclesiastical government. No less a personage than Hodge the prince of American Presbyterianism affirmed the following:

    “The theory on which this doctrine of the Reformed church is founded, is, 1. That the state is a divine institution, designed for promoting the general welfare of society, and as religion is necessary to that welfare, religion falls legitimately within the sphere of the state. 2. That the magistrate, as representing the state, is, by divine appointment, the guardian of the law, to take vengeance on those who transgress, and for the praise of those who obey; and as the law consists of two tables, one relating to our duties to God, and the other to our duties to men, the magistrate is, ex officio, the guardian of both tables and bound to punish the infractions of the one as well as of the other. 3. That the Word of God determines the limits of the magistrate’s office in reference to both classes of his duties; and as, under the Old Testament, there was a form of religion with its rites and officers prescribed which the magistrate could not change, so there is under the New. But under the Old, we find with this church government the kings were required to do, and in fact did do, much for the support and reformation of religion and the punishment of idolaters; so they are now bound to act on the same principles, making the pious kings of the Old Testament their model.”

    He further states that for this very reason the standards were revised and this doctrine was purged from them. This is what I stand for, and subscribe to. I believe that the American Revision has one minor error–the rejection of the pope as the man of sin. Notice what Hodge says:

    “1. In the first place it assumes that the state, the family, and the church are all divine institutions, having the same general end in view, but designed to accomplish that end by different means. That as we cannot infer from the fact that the family and the state are both designed to promote the welfare of men, that the magistrate has the right to interfere in the domestic economy of the family; so neither can we infer from the church and state having the same general end, that the one can rightfully interfere with the affairs of the other. If there were no other institution than the family, we might infer that all the means now used by the church and state, for the good of men, might properly be used by the family; and if there were no church, as a separate institution of God, then we might infer that the family and the state were designed to accomplish all that could be effected. But as God has instituted the family for domestic training and government; the state, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives; and the church for the promotion and extension of true religion, the three are to be kept distinctive within their respective spheres.

    2. That the relative duties of these several institutions cannot be learned by reasoning a priori from their design, but must be determined from the Word of God. And when reasoning from the Word of God, we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament economy because that was avowedly temporary and has been abolished, but must derive our conclusions from the New Testament. We find it there taught:

    (a) That Christ did institute a church separate from the state, giving it separate laws and officers.

    (b) That he laid down the qualifications of those officers and enjoined on the church, not on the state, to judge of their possession by candidates.

    (c) That he prescribed the terms of admission to and the grounds of exclusion from the church, and left with the church its officers to administer these rules.

    These acts are utterly inconsistent with Erastianism and with the relation established in England between the church and state.

    3. That the New Testament, when speaking of the immediate design of the state and the official duties of the magistrate, never intimates that he has those functions which the common doctrine of the Lutheran and Reformed church assign him. This silence, together with the fact that those functions are assigned to the church and church officers, is proof that it is not the will of God that they should be assumed by the state.

    4. That the only means which the state can employ to accomplish many of the objects said to belong to it, viz. pains and penalties, are inconsistent with the example and commands of Christ; with the rights of private Christians, guaranteed in the Word of God (i.e., to serve God according to the dictates of his conscience); are ineffectual to the true end of religion, which is voluntary obedience to the truth; and productive of incalculable evil. The New Testament, therefore, does not teach that the magistrate is entitled to take care that true religion is established and maintained; that right men are appointed to church offices; that those officers do their duty, that proper persons be admitted, and improper persons be rejected from the church; or that heretics be punished. And on the other hand, by enjoining all these duties upon the church, as an institution distinct from the state, it teaches positively that they do not belong to the magistrate, but to the church. If to this it be added that experience teaches that the magistrate is the most unfit person to discharge these duties; that his attempting it has always been injurious to religion and inimical to the rights of conscience, we have reason to rejoice in the recently discovered truth that the church is independent of the state, and that the state best promotes her interests by letting her alone.”

    The American revision I stand for, the original confession is what Walt stands for. The animus that motivates Walt is based on the realization that Tim’s eschatological position denies any intermingling between the civil and the ecclesiastical by affirming the EXCLUSIVELY spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom. This does not mean that Christ’s kingdom has no relation to civil powers anymore than saying that the spiritual nature of the Lord’s Supper (rejecting transubstantiation or consubstantiation) has nothing to do with bread and wine. Invisible and visible in scripture are ALWAYS united. The Baptists are wrong for denying the visible, the Romanists are wrong for denying the invisible, and the Reformed majority are wrong for confusing them. I see this hermeneutical tangle played out over and over in many loci of systematic theology. It all goes back to a deficient view of covenant. But not to digress any longer…

    To affirm that all civil powers are indirect theocracies solves the issue. They do not have the right to punish blasphemers with death. The violation of the first table of the Law is now only sin, while the violation of the second table of the law is both sin and crime. OT Israel executed people who “watched TV” on the Sabbath, why don’t we? Because America, Canada, Russia, all nations are indirect theocracies under the Lordship of king Jesus. They will be punished by the Son (Psa. 2) for violating the law of God in Christ. They therefore ought to acknowledge the religion of Christianity, declaring themselves Christian nations, while at the same time refusing to criminalize other religions or atheism. They ought to refrain from offering government services on the Lord’s day, while penalizing no one for having a store open. They ought to compel swearing an oath on the Bible only in court cases, while compelling no private citizen to take or make an oath in the name of Jesus Christ when it is private. There ought to be no crucifixes in government buildings, common in Romanist countries, and no Bible reading or Lord’s prayer recital in public schools. Because there ought to be no public schools!

    But this does not mean that they are not under the lordship of Jesus Christ as indirect theocracies. There is no national temple, no national priesthood, and no sacrifices, but there is a king, and he is the king of kings. An appellation found in the book of Revelation. Nothing of which Tim has spoken so far, contradicts a proper understanding of the Reformed Faith and a proper understanding of Postmillenialism. The belief in the pervasiveness of the Gospel, to create an age of gospel prosperity for long duration is wholly dependent on the sovereign power of the word and Spirit. When the millennium comes it will be wholly spiritual. And afterward there will be a general apostasy when Satan shall be loosed to deceive the nations. Rev. 20.

    The rise of Antichrist’s kingdom, the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom both highlight how that God will in time and history transform the world by spiritual means. If the world is corrupted by a flood of false doctrine, it will also be restored by the conversion of Muslims and Jews. All indirect theocracies will become a direct theocracy on the day of judgement when the following happens:

    21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
    22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
    23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
    24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
    26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
    27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
    28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:21-28 NKJ)

    Please note:
    1. The resurrection of Christ is the inauguration of a new age exemplified by a New Covenant. The old order with its Mosaic economy is dead. This became clearly visible in 70 (AD) with the destruction of the temple which Jesus predicted in Luke 21. Most of the warnings in the NT about the “last days” are warnings of the impending destruction of the old order.
    2. The all in Christ who are made alive, that is resurrected, are all those who believe. Believing is called by Jesus a resurrection of the dead:

    25 “Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. (Jn. 5:25 NKJ)”

    Therefore the age of resurrection has begun:

    5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
    6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. (Rev. 20:5-6 NKJ). This is clearly spiritual resurrection because they are called blessed, holy, priests and kings. That happens at the new birth.

    3. The order given is Christ first, and those who are Christ’s at his coming. This is a reference to physical resurrection. Only Gentiles do not see a connection between physical and spiritual resurrection. We are physically resurrected BECAUSE we have been spiritually resurrected:

    23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Rom. 8:23 NKJ)

    29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
    30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Rom. 8:29-30 NKJ)

    Glorification in eastern orthodoxy is known as apotheosis, that is man becoming God. The Greek church fathers said, “God became man, that man might become like God”. Not that we become deity, but so partake of the divine nature that we are seated next to Christ.

    26 “And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations–
    27 `He shall rule them with a rod of iron; They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels ‘– as I also have received from My Father; (Rev. 2:26-27 NKJ)

    21 “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. (Rev. 3:21 NKJ)

    Thus 1 Cor. 15:23 actually gives the bounds of the millennium. There can be nothing after the coming of Christ because of the next verses.

    4. verse 24, “THEN comes the end.” When Christ returns history ends, not the beginning of a premillennial kingdom. If after Christ returns there is a premillennial kingdom then we have the contradiction of flesh mixed with spirit. People are still dying during Christs premillennial kingdom–

    20 “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. (Isa. 65:20 NKJ)

    How do we reconcile this with–

    50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor. 15:50 NKJ)

    If flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then how can people die at the age of one hundred? The only answer can be a gospel kingdom of Jesus Christ, spiritual in nature, spread by the word and spirit, which influence almost all of the human race sometime in the future, but in time and history. THEN there is a general apostasy. THEN Christ returns.

    5. WHEN the end comes he delivers the kingdom to the father. But I thought he had no kingdom? No, he did, but it was exclusively spiritual. Indirect theocracies.
    6. verse 25 says he must reign UNTIL all enemies are put down. Who is the last enemy to be put down?

    14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. (Rev. 20:14-21:1 NKJ)

    There are no chapters in the bible. When death is destroyed then there is a new heaven. But he must reign until the last enemy death is subjugated. Therefore he is reigning now, when physical death is destroyed by the resurrection of the just and the wicked death with be destroyed and his spiritual kingdom shall become visible in eternity–not in history.
    7. The final step is the mediatorial kingdom, the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ, is place under the rule of God the Father so that all things return to the paradaisical state. There is no evil, there is no memory of evil and God is all in all. (There is a difference of opinion as to whether the mediatorship of Jesus Christ continues in the eternal state, since mediation is no longer needed)

    I know this was long winded. I apologize for taxing anybody’s patience. And on to a final matter that is much more distasteful–

    Walt you need to repent. I have called you to it. I know how the RPCNA works. Anything I send to you would be rejected because I do not have standing in your courts. Very convenient. I do not read anywhere that the apostle Paul gave the Galatian church a fifty page document proving Peter’s hypocrisy before he rebuked him publicly. He who uses process to avoid repentance is a Pharisee. They were renowned for requiring punctilious adherence to the law, and avoiding mercy and repentance. So I will say one more thing—

    9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (Tit. 3:9-11 NKJ)

    You are warped and self-condemned. There is ample testimony of your behavior in the comments section of this blog. You have been called to repentance by others on here. None have been so harsh as I have. It is in an attempt to call you back to the mind of Christ, who became a servant. I appeal to you, to repent. If you REFUSE I can only conclude that, like the Free Church of Scotland elder who hated the pastor’s guts, you do not have a credible profession of faith. Therefore I will have nothing to do with you until you repent by apologizing to Tim and others. Further, I do not expect anyone else to join me in this. I neither need your approval nor expect it. I wear big pants, and am fully able to stand on my own two feet. I will be praying for you Walt.

    In Jesus,

    Dr. Gus Gianello, scholar in residence
    Issachar Biblical Institute

    Reply

    1. Gustavo, wow, thanks for this. Its going to take me a few hours to digest this. I’ll probably have a few questions. K

       Reply

    2. Gustavo, as a brother in Christ I want to thank you for all the overwhelming amount of information and wisdom you provided here explaining the WCF history on this subject and the American Presbyterian leaders and the two different camps, and end times stuff . I dont know what your formal position is, but its obvious through your posts that you are a man of God. I couldnt help but notice your name. Are you Italian. I am Italian and speak the language fluently. God bless and thanks again. K

       Reply

       1. Caro fratello in cristo–
          Mio italiano e senza practica ora troverai che e molto limitato specialmento quando che scrivo la lingua. Era nato in Toronto con due genitori da Vicenza. Adriano e Arsenia Gianello sono venuti a Canada in 1953 e io era nato 1955. Sono un vechio! Ma mi comporto come un giovaneto! Ho diventato un Cristiano quando che era 17. Era uno Carasmatico, un Pelegiano, un dispensationalista adesso sono guisto uno che studia la bible e sta faccendo molti sbaglie perche sono sempre fina che morire una peccatore. Fiducia in Cristo voldirre ascoltare la Biblia. Ho appena deto a Tim che ce possibile che in una maniere strana sono de una familia Waldensia. E una possibilita! Buon novo anno, e se poso auitare tua situazione non hesitare di fare contacto.

          And so i have exhausted my italian. now i need a rest.
          God Bless,

          Dr. Gustavo Gianello
          Issachar Biblical Institute
          issachar.institute@gmail.com

          Reply

          1. Veramente caro fratello, Ti comporti come gioventto. Non mi fai pensare che tu sei un vechio. Sei versmente l’uomo molto brillante. Anch’ Io sono giovenetto. Ho cinquntotto. Lol. Ho diventato Christiano in Los Angeles quando avevo ventanni. John MacArthur predicato Mathew 7, narrow is the gate. Poci anni fa diventavo piu reformed. MacArthur mi ha insagnato molto, comunque Tim mi ha isengnato tanto. Reformed mi sembrano molto sapienza di biblia. Grazie per avermi scritto in Italiano Buon Anno nouvo e molto blessings. Gus, if you have time can you listen to MavArthurs sermon on the sabbath and let me know your thoughts. The only struggle I have is sometimes the Reformed miss the discontinuity between the OT and the NT. Like, infant baptism and circumcision. According to the regulative principle it seems to me like this would be a violation even good and neccesssry consequence. MacArthur makes a good argument on the Sabbath, but I want to get your perspective. Only, if you have time. Buona salute a te e tutta tua famiglia. Miei genitori sono nati Trentino. Ciao. Abito Scottsdale AZ. K

             Reply

             1. Dear brother and paisano in cristo–

                Thanks for wap workout. You are in my favorite place–Arizona. I am helping a brother by the name of David Reece establish a mission work in Phoenix. I wont load you down with a lot of heavy analysis-especially the day before Asti Spumante, and cena a nonna. But I will give you some introductory thoughts. You can think about them and then dialogue (no condemnation ala a certain rpcna fellow on this blog). Feel free to disagree with me, after all I disagree with just about everybody.

                1. I don’t listen to John MacArthur and here is why http://www.trinityfoundation.org/archive.php?keyword=macarthur. If his positions have changed since then for the better I would consider reading him. Nothing against MacArthur but I prefer spending my time getting it right rather than analyzing where people got it wrong.
                2. John MacArthur, to be precise is a Calvinistic Baptist, not Reformed. He is a brother, but just like I would not expect a Baptist to major on Paedobaptists but rather his own doctrine, I major on Reformed doctrine not Anabaptist doctrine. (Some prefer to call Anabaptists ANTI-paedobaptists since they do not regard any mode of using water other than immersion as baptism per se. To them I am not baptized, even if as an adult, because I have been sprinkled) 3. To be clear it is the Baptists who reject the Presbyterian doctrine of baptism. No Reformed Church would reject someone who is immersed as an adult.
                4. The issue of continuity/discontinuity is poorly constructed because it leaves you in a false dilemma. It is NOT either continuity OR discontinuity but rather what saith the Scripture. Clearly Jesus teaches continuity (Mat. 5:17-19) BUT the apostles reject circumcision—and a clerical priesthood, animal sacrifices, a material temple, ad nauseum. So the issue must be constructed differently. The Jewish Rabbis understood that when Messiah came he would give a new Torah by changing the old. So rather than discontinuity/continuity the question should be : “How did the Messianic mission change the covenant?” In some places there is continuity in others there is discontinuity. The relation between OT and NT is determined by Christ and his apostles. They were chosen by the ascended Christ personally to continue to both ratify, enlarge and transform the OT. Therefore we must EXEGETICALLY apply very carefully a case by case study of how Jesus and the apostles transformed the Torah. I call this the “hermeneutic of transformation” Case in point: It is a mistake to affirm that there are no required sacrifices in the NT. The required sacrifices are: yourself (Rom. 12:1,2) praise (Heb. 13:15), and collections (Phil. 4:14). The requirement for sacrifices continue but it has been transformed to intensify its spirituality, internality and comprehensive. The Messiah says “sacrifice all–and first your life” (Luke 14:26,27, 33) Another example concerning the “hermeneutic of transformation” is circumcision/baptism. Circumcision clearly continues in the NT: Rom. 2:28-29. Yet Paul denounces those who wish to be physically circumcised. See: Gal. 5:11. Paul even goes so far as to call Christians the Circumcision: Phil. 3:3. So why does he denounce it in Galatians, call Christians by it in Philippians and circumcise Timothy? Was he a hypocrite? Acts 16:1-3. These apparent contradictions are easily solved when we realize that circumcision continues in the New Covenant but it is transformed. It is no longer bloody, it is no longer administered only to males, and it is associated with the Holy Spirit by the use of water as Jesus specified in John 3:5. So we baptize babies because this is spiritual circumcision (Col. 2:11-12) as Paul declares and a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:27-29) which has not changed. The continuity is the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant because the Seed, Jesus Christ came, the discontinuity is that there is no blood (because now it is spiritual signified by the emblem of water as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. See: Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28, 29; John 7:37-39), no foreskin because it is inward, and administered to males and females as prophesied by Joel 2:29 which Peter quoted in Acts 2:17-19. (Please note that Joel says “afterward” yet Peter REINTERPRETS it as “last days”. He could do that, because as an apostle he spoke as the representative of the ascended Christ infallibly) That is why I believe in infant baptism. Not because it regenerates infants, but because it is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled–and therefore glorified. People who have a problem with baptizing infants have a problem with God: Gen. 17:10-14; Exodus 4:24-26. God threatened to kill Moses and/or Gershom because he had failed to circumcise Gershom. Zipporah was the smart one–she understood the covenant better than Moses! So it’s a sin if you don’t baptize your infants as much of a sin as insisting on physical circumcision. The first denies the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant and the second denies the discontinuity introduced by the Messiah and his apostles TRANSFORMING circumcision. Same goes for the Lord’s Supper. It is a continuation of Passover–but without a lamb, because Christ is our Passover. It is transformed because it is not bloody, happens more frequently than once a year, and is more spiritual because the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ. They are non-bloody elements. The continuity is that it is the Passover, the discontinuity is that it is transformed by being most glorious, spiritual and outwardly emblematic of an inward grace. Baptism is not. That is why we baptize infants but DON’T give them the Lord’s Supper. They cannot give any indication of indwelling grace because they cannot examine themselves. See:1 Cor. 11:25. I hope you see a pattern here. The Baptists are wrong to make it a memorial because for them they deny the visible, but the Romanists are wrong to make it a sacrifice because for them it is ONLY visible. The truth is that Christ is really present in the bread and wine but only symbolically and spiritually–if we believe. That is why sacraments must never be given without the word as Romanists do, but never be celebrated as though the symbols are inconsequential as Baptists do, by substituting grape juice for wine, and cookies for bread. One Baptist missionary confided to me that in Africa they sometimes substitute sand for water, because the water is infested with parasites, but you have to have a lot of sand because it MUST be by immersion. So the element is inconsequential but the MODE is critical. I hope you are seeing a pattern here. Thanks for the opportunity to serve you.
                5. The Sabbath. Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath has the right to reinterpret. See: Mark 2:27-28. He therefore reformed it of all the Talmudic accretions. But he also transformed it because He intentionally broke the Old Covenant Sabbath: John 5:15-18. Note it does not say they accused him of breaking the Sabbath, it says he BROKE the Sabbath. His rationale is that God continues to work, evidenced by Jesus healing on the Sabbath. (This is commentary by the writer of the gospel, John, enscripturated in this passage at verse 18.) John says Jesus broke the Sabbath. After all the Sabbath is a unique sign belonging to the Mosaic covenant. See: Exodus 31:13-16. That is why the death penalty is attached to Sabbath-keeping–because it was a type of treason, a rejection of the Mosaic Covenant. Only polytheists would break the Sabbath. The Sabbath though transformed from a uniquely Jewish covenant sign continues in the New Covenant. It is spiritual. It signifies entering into the rest of faith: Heb. 3:11-4:11. The continuity is that it continues. The discontinuity is that it is not once a week, but every day of the week (Rom. 14:5-6), that it does not require strict avoidance of work because believing in Jesus means resting from all your works. It is more glorious because it does not mark the end of the week as in the 7th day, or the beginning of the week as in the 1st day, but it marks the beginning of the age of resurrection and is now called the “Lord’s Day” in honor of the resurrection. NOWHERE in the NT is it called the Christian Sabbath, that is a faulty inference that developed during the Reformation and is also found in the Westminster Confession. It CANNOT be the Christian Sabbath because we are forbidden to judge others for not keeping it (Col. 2:16-17), we are required to accept Christians who do not acknowledge it as conscientious Christians and forbidden to controvert with them. See: Rom. 14:10-17. According to the Puritan doctrine of the Sabbath it is a sin to work on the “Christian Sabbath”, and I must correct anybody who does, and judge my culture for not having blue laws. We are told we must keep it the way the Jews did because it is part of the moral law. The only change is that it is on Sunday. How is that more spiritual? Moreover, if that is true, why aren’t Sabbath keepers everywhere agitating for the death penalty and why aren’t churches excommunicating Christians for working on the Sabbath? The Puritan rubric of “works of necessity”, “works of mercy” and “works of worship” to justify exceptions to Sabbath law are too arbitrary and too open to private interpretation. So just like in the days of the Jews they have given rise to a whole class of clerics who investigate “cases of conscience” to determine when you are breaking the Sabbath. A strict Puritan Sabbatarian will not put gas in his car on Sunday, will not cook a meal on Sunday, is conscience stricken if he rides public transit on Sunday. Meticulously calculates what a “Sabbath day’s journey” is and will leave any church that does not enforce strict Sabbath keeping. And rightly so IF the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath. I contend that it is not. IF I am wrong prove to me that it is even though the NT is silent. Here is an example of continuity misapplied leading to tragic results. The tragic results are the binding of the consciences of God’s people with burdens too heavy to bear. If the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath WHY does the apostle Paul forbid judging on the basis of Sabbath keeping (Gal. 4:9-11). Don’t forget, Judaizers wanted circumcision AND Sabbath keeping. We enter our Sabbath rest when we believe in Jesus. I will never cause a Sabbath keeping brother to stumble by being looser than he is when in his presence. But I am persuaded that when I give no offense I am free in Jesus to eat out or go see a movie. The ONLY thing that the NT forbids us to do on the Lord’s Day is forsake assembly: Heb. 10:25

                I have gone on for quite a bit. Happy new year and God in Christ richly bless you and your family. Buon Novo Anno caro fratello in Cristo. L’amore di di il Patre, la grazia di il Signore Jesu Cristo, e la communita del Spirito Santo esse con te e gli tuoi.

                Gustavo

    3. Gus, I carefully read this and I have no problem with anything you said. A great summation between indirect and direct theocracies. The none problem I have is the literal verses about the return of the Temple. Of course premillnialists argue that many spiritualize those OT verses, and they argue that its convenient to make the the first half of verses ( the promises) to the church and then put all the second parts of verses ( the punishments) on the Jews. I hope I said that right. Would love to get your input. K

       Reply

       1. Dear Kevin,
          So should we expect to see a doorknob in the place of a navel when we see the glorified Christ. After all He is the door. And is God a big bird? Psa 91 Replacement theology, spiritualizing are all pejorative terms thrown about by antagonists who don’t want to deal with the real issue. The real issue is determined by letting Jesus and His apostles tell you what they did with Israel. Remember not continuity/discontinuity but the “hermeneutic of transformation”.

          Reply

          1. Thanks Gus, im.going to think hard about your words. K

             Reply

50. DR. GUS–
    You said: “I believe that the American Revision has one minor error–the rejection of the pope as the man of sin.”

    Can you expound on that? Where is that rejection and why was it rejected?

    Reply

51. Dear brother,
    The american revision circa 1780s rejects it by virtue of excluding the following clause–

    WCF 25.6 There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God. ] (WCF 25:6 WCS)

    Notice that the words in [] are not in the american revision. By the time the 1780s came along American presbyterians were no longer convinced that the pope was the antichrist. They did so because they found themselves in tension with the american experience of pluralism, and the rejection of a national church. Remember Maryland one of the original 13 colonies was founded by Roman Catholics.

    Pluralism does not necessarily imply no national religion. Jews were welcomed in colonial America. America could have instituted a recognition of Christianity as national religion while excluding Romanism because of its uniquely antichrist character. The American founding documents are therefore flawed, and already evidence the collapse of the detente between Protestantism and Enlightenment thought.

    Dr. Gus

    Reply

    1. DR GUS–
       You said:”The american revision circa 1780s rejects it by virtue of excluding the following clause”

       Is it really a rejection or just an omission?

       You also said: “By the time the 1780s came along American presbyterians were no longer convinced that the pope was the antichrist. They did so because they found themselves in tension with the american experience of pluralism, and the rejection of a national church. Remember Maryland one of the original 13 colonies was founded by Roman Catholics.”

       Pluralism may be just a fancy name for tolerance. The Bill of Rights basically limits the Governments restrictions on personal freedoms–i.e. religion. People came to this country to escape religious persecution, and they certainly wanted to keep their own religious preference protected as well. As an example, German Lutheran communities settled in separate areas than German Catholics.

       I think pluralism is a good thing as far as the civil government is concerned. I certainly wouldn’t like sharia law.

       –Bob

       Reply

       1. Dear Bob,

          It is a rejection by virtue of omission. This can be confirmed by the fact that the larger catechism was rewritten to reflect the revised Confession.

          Gus

          Reply

52. addendum–
    Please note Jefferson and Franklin were deists, and therefore strongly influences the Constitution. Jefferson had an antisupernaturalistic version of the NT published posthumously.

    Gus

    Reply

53. Gus, wow, thanks . So well explained. Can you answer one more question ( and maybe you have) the Sabbath was specifically given to the Jews in Exodus. MacArthur says ” what did Jesus do on the Sabvath, anything he wanted. The Apostles never mention the Sabbath, nor are we instructed to keep a sabbath. It is placed in the middle of the ten commandments. He says, all the other commandments we are obstructed to obeserve, amongst other things, but never a sabbath. He argues that we have entered Jesus rest, the Temple was destroyed. Also in Colossians the verse that talks about those who would hold us to a sabbath day shouldnt. His point is that it is the weekly sabbath in view Paul has here because he mentions festival days to cover other days. Again brother I have read and will re read all you provide. I need to re consider some positions. Thanks Gus, K

    Reply

54. if this is MacArthur’s position he is essentially correct. I would only add that in the NT the Sabbath continues by just believing in Jesus and is discontinued as far as being weekly and being a crime. It also discontinued as the basis for judging the profession of other christians. MacArthur is right on this, but wrong on baptism. How is that possible? Because of this continuity/discontinuity “horns of a dilemma” fallacy. The right approach is how did Jesus and the NT transform the OT.

    Gus

    Reply

    1. Gus, thank you. You have caused me to re think infant baptism. A great debate is the Baprtist theologian Johnson and Horton on Covenant. Fascinating. Have you read Michael Horton’s stuff. Mi sento che Ti devo un po soldi per un class seminary. Lol. Thank you dear brother. Ci sentiamo a presto. K

       Reply

       1. Grazie caro fratello
          I am developing an online seminary type program. Multimedia with exams. The cost compared to seminary will be very affordable. Let me know if you want to be informed when Issachar Biblical Institute courses are available. The first one will be “Introduction to Biblical Philosophy”. Also I mentor students in theology and philosophy via Skype for a reasonable cost. Let me know if you are interested. I record the conversation for future reference and forward it to the student. Therefore no need to take notes.

          Ciao amico

          Gustavo

          Reply

55. Kevin–
    By the way look at EVERY listing of the decalogue in the New Testament and the first table of the law is NEVER mentioned. Does this mean it does not apply? No. Paul within the context of arguing about the civil magistrate and what Christian’s are obligated to do never mentions the first table. See: Rom. 12 I believe his intent was to demonstrate that since the kingdom of God is no longer limited to Israel but is in fact no international because the Gentiles are included, he shows that the civil polity of the Jews is abolished and that the first 4 commandments are now only sins whereas the next six are still sins and crimes as under Moses. Antinomians reject the whole of the 10, and legalists affirm the whole of the 10, and careful expositors ask how did the messiah transform the torah?

    Gus

    Reply

    1. Gus, boy this is really good. K

       Reply

56. From the CCC:
    348 The sabbath is at the heart of Israel’s law. To keep the commandments is to correspond to the wisdom and the will of God as expressed in his work of creation.
    349 The eighth day. But for us a new day has dawned: the day of Christ’s Resurrection. The seventh day completes the first creation. The eighth day begins the new creation. Thus, the work of creation culminates in the greater work of redemption. The first creation finds its meaning and its summit in the new creation in Christ, the splendor of which surpasses that of the first creation.

    Reply

57. Bob–
    That is excellent. I assume that the ccc is the congregational church? If not it does not matter cuz points 348-349 are excellent.

    Gus

    Reply

    1. CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church.

       You can find it online for free. There are many other good points in there if you have an open mind and heart, even if you disagree.

       Reply

58. CK,
    Under no circumstances do i reject everything the Roman church teaches. Otherwise I would not be trinitarian and affirm the Athanasian creed. I read the apostolic fathers. I simply reject whatsoever is not in line with the supremacy of scripture. I reject tradition and mysticism not insight.

    Have a happy new year,

    Gus

    Reply

    1. ” I reject tradition and mystycism. ” Ya, and idolatry, and the false gospel of ” go out and do your part” Calvin had it square on , we dont merit the merit of Christ, His merits are applied through faith alone. We have an obligation as ambassadors of the true gospel ,that whatever ” good points” can be found in the ccc, following that system’s prescription for salvation cant save them. K

       Reply

59. DR. GUS and KEVIN–
    “I simply reject whatsoever is not in line with the supremacy of scripture. I reject tradition and mysticism not insight.”

    La supremazia della scrittura è una tradizione. I contorni di WCF. La Bibbia dice: “Ora vi lodo perché vi ricordate di me in tutto e tenere premuto saldamente alle tradizioni, appena come ho consegnato a voi.”–1Co 11:2 e “Così dunque fratelli, rimanete saldi e tenere premuto per le tradizioni che vi hanno insegnato, sia con la parola di bocca o dalla lettera da noi.”–2Th 2:15

    Felice Anno Nuovo, ya’ll!

    Reply

    1. BOB–
       What you think tradition means, and what it actually means are two different things. “paraapdosis” or “tradition” in both places in these scriptures is a reference to the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith is defined as all the previous teaching that the apostle Paul communicated to the churches either verbally or in written form, either directly or indirectly. It NEVER means the teaching of anyone other than Christ or an apostle. The apostles could not delegate their authority to anyone else. There is no apostolic sucession. The reasons? [1]Apostleship is unique requiring calling by Christ directly either before or after his resurrection. Acts 1:21-22; see also 1 Cor about Paul’s unique calling: “Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:8 NKJ)”. Paul says “last of all” and the greek “eschata” has reference to the last one in a temporal sequence. (See Moulton-Milligan, Greek NT Lexicon) There can be no apostles after Paul. They are unique and are promised a special place in God’s kingdom. See: Mat. 19:28 and Rev. 21:14. The name of the apostle Paul, I believe, though it is conjecture, replaces the name of Judas Iscariot. There is no record, that i know of, that tells us of the apostolic accomplishments of Mattias. If wrong on this point that’s ok, it does not change the fact that because the apostles are unique they cannot delegate their authority to anyone else or we would need a new foundation stone for every pope since Peter. There would be a heck of a lot more than 12.
       [2] The apostolic and undelegated tradition is enscripturated and therefore closed. Since there are no more apostles, and they cannot delegate their authority, nothing can be added to the apostolic tradition. Notice that Paul delivered the tradition: 1 Cor. 11:2. 2 Thes. 3:6 the tradition wa “received” from Paul. Notice what Schaff in the Early Church Fathers says of the early church’s understanding of tradition:

       “The apostles distinguish between vain traditions of the Jews, and their own Christian παραδόσεις
       the “tradita apostolica” (2 Tim. i. 13, 14; 2 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 2; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor. v. 8; 1 Cor. xvi. 2). Among these were (1) the authentication of their own Scriptures; (2) certain “forms of sound words,” afterwards digested into liturgies; (3) the rules for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and of administering baptism; (4) the Christian Passover and the weekly Lord’s Day; (5) the Jewish Sabbath and ordinances, how far to be respected while the temple yet stood; (6) the kiss of charity, and other observances of public worship; (7) the agapae, the rules about widows, etc.

       In some degree these were the secret of the Church, with which “strangers intermeddled not” lawfully. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated after the catechumens and mere hearers had withdrawn, and nobody was suffered to be present without receiving the sacrament. But, after the conversion of the empire, the canons and constitutions universally dispersed made public all these tradita; and the liturgies also were everywhere made known. It is idle, therefore, to shelter under theories of the Disciplina Arcani, those Middle-Age inventions, of which antiquity shows no trace but in many ways contradicts emphatically; e.g., the Eucharist, celebrated after the withdrawal of the non-communicants, and received, in both kinds, by all present, cannot be pleaded as the “secret” which justifies a ceremony in an unknown tongue and otherwise utterly different; in which the priest alone partakes, in which the cup is denied to the laity and which is exhibited with great pomp before all comers with no general participation.”

       Are you going to disagree with the early church fathers understanding of the tradita apostolica?
       [3] Because the apostolic tradition is closed and its authority cannot be delegated anyone else, the mark of a false apostle is the claim to add to that tradition. See: Col. 2:8; Mat. 7:15-23; 15:19; 24:11; 24:24; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6-12 [Elymus claimed the right to add to the tradition by calling himself a prophet]; 2
       Cor. 12:12-15 [they are called “angels (or messengers) of light because they claim the same status as Paul]; Gal. 2:1-5 [false brothers because they wanted to add circumcision to the apostolic tradition]; 2 Pet. 2:1 [called false prophets because they wanted to add heresy to the apostolic tradition]; 1 Jn. 4:1-3 [where adding to or substracting from the apostolic tradition is defined as the spirit of Antichrist; therefore to confess the Christ, since no addition or subtraction is allowed means to ONLY confess Christ. NO Maria co-redemptrix.]; Rev. 2:1-2 [they are TESTED who call themselves apostles; and found to be false. Why because they tried to include themselves in the same group as Paul and the 12 but had no association with them AND tried to add/subtract from what the apostles had left. N.B. In post apostolic history heresiarchs promulgated their heresies, like Marcion, Valentinus, and others by either claiming to be apostles, prophets, or adding/substracting to the apostolic tradition.]

       Notice also: Rev. 16:13, 19:20 are false because they represent the BEAST not the apostles. Every time we uphold only the word of God [Bible] we are being faithful to the apostolic tradition: Rev. 12:11. Thats what “testimony” means as evidenced by Thayer in the following—

       in a predominantly dogmatic sense respecting matters relating to the truth of Christianity: of the testimony establishing the Messiahship and the divinity of Jesus (see μαρτυρέω, a.), given by — John the Baptist: John 1:7; 5:32; ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου, John 1:19; Jesus himself, with a genitive of the subjunctive, John 5:31; 8:13f; God, in the prophecies of Scripture concerning Jesus tile Messiah, in the endowments conferred upon him, in the works done by him, John 5:36; through the Holy Spirit, in the Christian’s blessed consciousness of eternal life and of reconciliation with God, obtained by baptism ((cf. references under the word βάπτισμα, 3)) and the expiatory death of Christ, with a subject. genitive τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1 John 5:9-11, cf. 1 John 5:6-8; the apostles, σου τήν μαρτυρίαν περί ἐμοῦ, Acts 22:18 (Winer’s Grammar, 137 (130)); the other followers of Christ: Rev. 6:9; with a genitive of the subjunctive αὐτῶν, Rev. 12:11; with a genitive of the object Ἰησοῦ, Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 20:4 (ἔχειν this μαρτυρία is to hold the testimony, to persevere steadfastly in bearing it, Rev. 6:9; 12:17; 19:10 (see ἔχω, I. 1 d.); others, however, explain it to have the duty of testifying laid upon oneself); elsewhere the testimony of Christ is that which he gives concerning divine things, of which he alone has thorough knowledge, John 3:11,32f; ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ, that testimony which he gave concerning future events relating to the consummation of the kingdom of God, Rev. 1:2 (cf. Rev. 22:16,20); διά τήν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, to receive this testimony, Rev. 1:9.*

       THEREFORE all christians are to believe in the apostolic tradition and that alone. Put another way, the Christian magisterium is Genesis to Revelation alone. All additions to that tradition or magisterium are to be rejected. See: Mat 23:8-10. The only HOLY FATHER is in heaven, the only magisterium is the teacher the Christ.

       Gus

       Reply

       1. Gus, that might be the best explanation I have ever read on apostolic tradition. Man, you should go over to called to communion and join the argument against Dave Anders article against sola scriptura. K

          Reply

60. DR. GUS–
    One more thing:
    You said: “The truth is that Christ is really present in the bread and wine but only symbolically and spiritually–if we believe. That is why sacraments must never be given without the word as Romanists do”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that. Catholics believe faith is what tells them Christ is present because their mere human senses fail. And as far as I have witnessed, Catholics never give communion “without the word”. How did you come to that conclusion?

    Reply

    1. Dear Bob,

       It is a common practice to give private masses, or celebrate the Eucharist at weddings or give the Eurcharist as part of Last Rites. And there is no proclamation of the Word of God. Protestants never baptize or celebrate the Lord’s Supper without a sermon first, for the word and the Spirit must be present to consecrate the elements of a sacrament. Since the presence of word and spirit MAKE the sacrament, and the word and Spirit always go together, when there is no proclamation of the Word, there is no Spirit, and therefore there is no sacrament. Romanists believe the sacraments operate “ex opere operato”, that is, in and of themselves being imbued with inherent grace, which is communicated to the soul by participation outwardly in the sacrament–without faith. Therefore the mere eating of the bread and wine communicates grace. Protestants believe that the mere eating only communicates condemnation (1 Cor. 11), and that we do not participate in the sacrament unless we do so both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly by eating the bread and wine and inwardly by believing. Where there is no proclamation of the word, there is no faith (Rom. 10:17) and therefore no inward communication. Therefore the warning of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11 that we examine ourselves.

       The matter is slightly different in baptism because in baptism there is indirect representation. In the Lord’s supper we represent ourselves–1 Cor. 11. In adult baptism we represent ourselves–Acts 2:37-39. In infant baptism our parents represent us: “14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:14 NKJ)” In the case of the unbelieving spouse who should repent he is “sanctified” by virtue of the wife’s faith, and in the case of the infant this is true as well. But an adult MUST participate in baptism actively and therefore believe for himself. An infant must participate in baptism PASSIVELY AND HIS BELIEVING PARENT(S) BELIEVE FOR HIM/HER. Why MUST the infant participate in baptism passively if the condition of a christian parent is met? Because of the terms of the Abrahamic covenant. See: Gen. 17. We are baptised to be adopted into the family of Abraham. By being adopted into the family of abraham we own the New Covenant, BECAUSE Christ is the seed to whom the Abrahamic covenant was promised, and it is through him that we receive salvation, which is the experience of the Abrahamic covenant. Gal. 3:26-29.

       Romanists reject covenant salvation because they do not believe representation by christ is needed. They are represented by Antichrist! Baptists, without knowing it, reject covenant salvation because they believe that only they and Christ can represent them. Covenant salvation is the scripotural acknowledgement that Christ delegates his authority to certain classes of people to represent other classes of people. Husbands represent wives (1 Cor 11; Eph. 5), parents represent children (Eph. 5), believing parents represent infants (Gen 17) and the civil magistrate represents God only. (There is no consent of the governed.) Elders or pastors represent the people.

       That representation is “word-bound” which means that where the Word of God does not by the Spirit direct there is no representation, only tyranny. That is why Romanism is tyranny and so is anabaptism. They are both denials of covenant salvation, but of differing severity and therefore with different consequences. The believing Baptist is my brother, where the Papist CANNOT believe, since his faith is in the pope as his representative. If he denies His faith in the pope he is no longer a Roman Catholic! That is why you CANNOT be a Christian and stay in the Roman communion. Christ is mediated to you through the pope, not through scripture. And that is why the papal sacramental system does not REQUIRE the proclamation of the word. All that is required is the proclamation of the word of the antichrist (pope) by his representative the priest at the moment of the consecration and oblation. It is the word of the pope that makes the Eucharist [mass] a sacrament, and makes the waters holy so that it is baptism. Instead the word of the pope makes them an abomination.

       Gus

       Reply

       1. Gus said ” if the Romanist denies his faith in the pope he is no longer Roman Catholic. ” engenius, huh Gus, infant baptism ex opere operato is the hook. Once they are in that meritocracy, they are hooked. Because to put faith in the Word alone would be to deny their head and therfore forfiet their treadmill to perfection which necessitates acumulating inherent righteouness thru the sacraments ex opere operato. Rome saw the gospel as the enabling of the person to become righteous thru obedience and the compensation for their lack, not knowing the law requires perfection. Conflation of law and gospel has always been the corruption of faith thru church history. K

          Reply

61. Gus, la traditione e’ scrittura la stessa cosa. Non partim partim. Jesus coondemned those who make none effect the word of God for the sake of their traditions ( Rome). Every time we see men’s traditions elevated in scripture, we see the word of God compromised. Rome is the poster child. But it can be no other way. Romanism is an apostate church, false christianity , a front for the kingdom of Satan. Its bewitched the gullible world. The papacy is the Antichrist of scripture as Tim has so estutely shown, proving the Reformers and many great theologians of history correct. Ciao fratello. K

    Reply

    1. Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. That the Logos not only became flesh but also became scripture. How can any tradition be exalted so that it is seated next to the Logos? BUT tradition, PROTESTANT AND ROMANIST AND ORTHODOX is to be rejected. Not because in particulars they cannot and are not right, but because in universals they are dead wrong. Traditions are incoherent. To reject what Scripture teaches because the 2nd reformation does not, is the same as rejecting what Scripture teaches because the pope does not. And that is what is meant by the SUPREMACY of Scripture. The philosophy which classical protestantism inconsistently taught and applied is called “Scripturalism” and its thesis is only one axiom: “The bible, that is all the books of the Old and New Testament, and the bible alone, is the Word of God. This is known as the supremacy of Scripture. There is only ONE source of knowledge–the bible. There is no natural revelation as such. All else is opinion.

       Gus

       Reply

    2. Kevin–
       Just to clarify what inevitably comes up. “Tradition” as used by the apostle Paul always means the deposit of belief which is always defined as the apostolic writings already extent when paul wrote to his churches. Not all the letters that Paul wrote are enscripturated. Therefore the biblical tradition could be called the Pauline tradition, or the Johannine tradition or the Petrine tradition if we are only looking at the Pauline, Johannine or Petrine corpuses. It NEVER means any writings outside the New Testament. The apostolic tradition is opposed to every magisterium other than one–the Bible!

       Reply

       1. Gus, I agree. K

          Reply

62. DR GUS–
    You said: “The apostles could not delegate their authority to anyone else. There is no apostolic sucession. The reasons? [1]Apostleship is unique requiring calling by Christ directly either before or after his resurrection…The name of the apostle Paul, I believe, though it is conjecture, replaces the name of Judas Iscariot. There is no record, that i know of, that tells us of the apostolic accomplishments of Mattias. If wrong on this point that’s ok, it does not change the fact that because the apostles are unique they cannot delegate their authority to anyone else or we would need a new foundation stone for every pope since Peter. There would be a heck of a lot more than 12.

    It’s not ok if you are wrong on this point. It is obvious the Apostles had the authority because they exercised that authority when they replaced Judas with Matthias. Your reasoning that there is no record of apostolic accomplishment or that there would be a heck of a lot more stones than 12 doesn’t erase the fact that they did exercise that very authority of apostolic succession. Your explanation seems to infer that the actions of the apostles acted outside their authority by doing so; therefore, creating a tradition of men and not God.

    Reply

    1. Bob–=
       merely asserting that i am wrong does not prove it. The apostles DID NOT replace Judas–God did. They used the method equivalent to the Urim and Thummim of the OT Aaronic priesthood. What is your logic Bob? Since each of the apostles has a foundation stone PROVE that you can have apostolic authority without having a foundation stone. You cannot assume what you are trying to prove. That is a tautological fallacy. Also known as asserting the consequent.

       Gus

       Reply

       1. DR. GUS–
          You said: “merely asserting that i am wrong does not prove it. The apostles DID NOT replace Judas–God did. They used the method equivalent to the Urim and Thummim of the OT Aaronic priesthood. What is your logic Bob? Since each of the apostles has a foundation stone PROVE that you can have apostolic authority without having a foundation stone. You cannot assume what you are trying to prove. That is a tautological fallacy. Also known as asserting the consequent.

          Look at your own logic in what you just said. “The apostles DID NOT replace Judas–God did. They(meaning the Apostles, not God) used the method equivalent to the Urim and Thummim of the OT Aaronic priesthood.(which assumes authority was given to them to replace Judas, And since theywere apostles, I would call it “apostolic”.)

          And how many Apostles were there? You say twelve because of the twelve stones pictured in Revelation. Let’s count them, shall we:

          Andrew
          Bartholomew or Nathanael
          James, the Elder
          James, the Lesser or Younger
          John
          Judas
          Jude or Thaddeus
          Matthew or Levi
          Peter or Simon Peter
          Philip
          Simon the Zealot
          Thomas

          That is twelve. Judas was replaced by Matthias. Acts 1:24-26 records the following, “And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place… And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
          And yet you say that Paul may have been the one that replaced Judas, but the Bible nowhere says Paul was “numbered with the eleven apostles”. The Bible does say that Matthias was with Jesus since His baptism until his resurrection. Saul (Paul) was not. And according to tradition Matthias lived till 80 A.D. and spread the gospel on the shores of the Caspian and Cappadocia.
          If Paul is actually a true apostle, and the Bible does not record where he took the place of any other apostle, then that makes him number thirteen. Where’s his stone???

          Tautological fallacy. Them’s big words. Must be a double edged sword, huh?

          Reply

63. DR. GUS–
    You said: “Since the presence of word and spirit MAKE the sacrament, and the word and Spirit always go together, when there is no proclamation of the Word, there is no Spirit, and therefore there is no sacrament. Romanists believe the sacraments operate “ex opere operato”, that is, in and of themselves being imbued with inherent grace, which is communicated to the soul by participation outwardly in the sacrament–without faith. Therefore the mere eating of the bread and wine communicates grace.”

    Who taught you that? The very definition of “ex opere operato” is that the sacrament has been consecrated. That is the whole idea behind the liturgy itself–that the Words of Consecration and the power of the Holy Spirit is invoked. Otherwise then, the participation in communion would only be the mere eating of bread and the drinking of wine which does not communicate grace. The Words of Consecration are direct quotes from the Bible, and the epiclesis is the invoking of the Holy Spirit.

    What you are saying about Catholic practice could be no further from the truth. You may not believe it. And you may not like it. But what I have said above is what Catholics do. You might want to study the Mass more directly than rely on what someone else has taught you about it.

    Reply

64. Bob–
    Invoked by a priest, who represents the apostolic sucession that adheres in the magisterium, where the cardinals together with the pope determine or define every sacrament. Who gave the priest, or the cardinal or the pope the power to INVOKE THE HOLY SPIRIT.? And then you will once again ASSERT that the pope has that power because he does it. Again the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Protestants believe, based on the Scripture that the ONLY one who can invoke the Spirit is the Ascended Messiah and that therefore, the spirit is present at a genuine sacrament because the word is present and the two are never separate. The Holy Spirit is sovereign and does not inhere in a sacrament as an inherent power. Priests can invoke nothing.

    Gus

    Reply

    1. “Priests can invoke nothing.”

       Scripture says otherwise:
       Jhn 14:11“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
       12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
       13“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
       14“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”
       The epiclesis is the asking in prayer:
       “Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here,
       and on these gifts of bread and wine.
       Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ,
       that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
       redeemed by his blood. By your Spirit make us one with Christ,
       one with each other,…”

       or in short:
       “bless and sanctify with thy Word and Holy Spirit
       these thy gifts of bread and wine”

       or maybe this:
       “Send down your Holy Spirit
       that these gifts of bread and wine
       may be for us the body and blood of Christ.
       Unite us with him for ever
       and bring us with the whole creation
       to your eternal kingdom.”

       Like I said. You need to study the Mass directly instead of what someone else is feeding you about the Mass.

       –Bob

       Reply

       1. Bob–
          You have twisted scripture. Be intellectually honest enough to admit that the Scriptures can be twisted into meaning anything when you impose a meaning on them rather than letting them speak for themselves.

          John 14:12-14 What greater works is jesus talking about? A work can be greater in quality or quantity or both. When I say I do greater gardening than you do, do i mean more or better? We cannot do better than Jesus does, because He was/is perfect and ALL of our works are imperfect. Therefore he must mean not better but MORE. Now, what are these works? Could one of them be invoking the Spirit? Again context determines meaning. The Gk. is “megas ergon”. Megas=greater things than these, i. e. more extraordinary, more wonderful, John 1:50 (51); 5:20; 14:12. The wonderful and extraordinary things are Jesus vision of Nathanael under a tree, and Jesus says this is a minor miracle (1:50-51); and in Jn. 5:20 that the Father will prove his love for the Messiah by enabling him to do more spectacular miracles. So could then the promise of John 14:12-14 mean invoking the Spirit. NO! Because whatever it means it cannot refer to those things that mark the Messiahship of Jesus, and highlight his special relation to the father. If a priest could invoke the Spirit, there is nothing special or unique about Jesus. And it is for this very reason that Romanists are taught to invoke the Mary, the saints, and even the angels. Because the blessings they give are lesser in degree but not lesser in quality than Jesus Christ. That is blasphemy!

          The epiclesis may be an asking in prayer but during the oblation of the Mass that is an INVOKING.
          In checking out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), The Catholic Encyclopedia, and The Council of Trent, we find the following: The Eucharist is referred to in several ways.

          As a sacrifice
          “the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist,” (CCC, 1055) and “the Eucharist is also a sacrifice,” (CCC, 1365).
          As a divine sacrifice
          “For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (CCC, 1068).
          As a representation of the sacrifice of Christ
          “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross,” (CCC, 1366).
          Is ‘one single sacrifice’ with Christ’s sacrifice
          “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,” (CCC, 1367).
          It is the same sacrifice of Christ
          “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner,” (CCC, 1367).
          It is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God)
          ” . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,” (CCC, 1367).
          To all who deny its propitiatory nature Trent pronounces anathema
          “If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3)
          It is called the sacrifice of Christ which is offered via the priest’s hands
          “The sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands,” (CCC, 1369).
          It is capable of making reparation of sins
          “As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC, 1414).
          It is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice
          “The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice,'” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: “Sacrifice of the Mass”).

          From the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913–
          “…The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as “idolatry”, while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place….”

          The priest has “consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest”. In sacrifice God is invoked. The OT sacrifices INVOKED the presence of God because of the nature of the Mosaic covenant where God bound his presence to the sacrifices.
          Then he appointed some of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel. (1 Chr. 16:4 ESV).

          Physical Sacrifices have been ABOLISHED. ALL sacrifices in the New Covenant are not spiritual, internal, and voluntary. There is no covenant promise of the presence of God in the offering of sacrifices in the New Covenant.

          Rom. 12:1; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:15.

          This is why Romanism is so dangerous and is Antichrist. Because it confuses the Old Testament economy with the New Testament economy and essentially denies through its meritorious soteriology that invocation, oblation, and sacrifice have been accomplished once and for all in Christ. Even the Old Testament does not claim for the sacrificial system what Romanism claims for its sacrificial system. None of the Old Covenant sacrifices were “ex opere operato” and were conditional on Israel keeping covenant with God by faith alone. See: Hab. 2:4 Also:
          2 All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.
          3 “He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig’s blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations; (Isa. 66:2-3 ESV)

          11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
          12 “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?
          13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations– I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
          14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
          15 When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-15 ESV)

          God could not have said that about the sacrifices if His invoked presence during them was unconditional. Yet the Roman church teaches that the presence of the Spirit and of Christ are infallibly and unconditionally invoked in the sacraments. That is why unrepentant men can partake of the mass and STILL be graced, inspite of the words of the apostle in 1 Cor. 11.

          Gus

          Reply

          1. Gus said ” if a priest can invoke the Spirit, then there is nothing special or unique about Jesus” this is the point RC’s wont get. Why? Because usurpation is the whole system of Catholicism. The church is the agency of salvation, usurping Christ’s uniquely finished work. In fact the Roman church sees itself as Christ natural historical body on earth. And so the participant is helping Christ finish his incarnation thru the acts of the church. Co propitiatining. Here is how it works. You do your level best and God gives you grace. The more you do your level best the more he gives you grace. That is law. Worthiness of merit. Aquinas said that a man is predestined to glory in some way according to his merit instead of just the goodness of God. K

             Reply

             1. Gustavo said – Bob–
                You have twisted scripture. Be intellectually honest enough to admit that the Scriptures can be twisted into meaning anything when you impose a meaning on them rather than letting them speak for themselves.

                Me – anyone can twist Scripture into meaning anything, including you, right? Now be honest 😉

       2. Bob–
          I hate to tell you this, but having been an altar boy, and having been raised by the Capuchin fathers, nobody is feeding me anything about the Mass. I WAS a devout romanist, until i realized the hypocrisy of eating bread and then screwing around on your wife, getting drunk, cussing out your neighbor, etc. THEN I became a devout atheist, and laughed at both Romanists and Christians. I had even written a blasphemous science fiction story claiming Jesus was a cunning ancient astronaut from a race of intelligent dogs. So please dont give me the “you’re misrepresenting us” crap.

          Gus

          Reply

          1. Dr. Gustavo I didn’t realize you were a Dr. I hope you don’t mind if I follow BOB and refer to you at Dr. Gus.

             Dr. Gus said – I WAS a devout romanist, until i realized the hypocrisy of eating bread and then screwing around on your wife, getting drunk, cussing out your neighbor, etc. THEN I became a devout atheist, and laughed at both Romanists and Christians.

             Me – so would you encourage people to leave Christianity because 17% of Jesus APOSTLES denied Him? One of the twelve stole and betrayed Him for silver coins. Following your line of thinking you made the right choice to become an atheist.

             Can you point me to a church that does not have hypocrites? The Apostles couldn’t meet your standards.

             Reply

65. Gus said ” priests can invoke nothing” cmon Dr. Gus, your going pretty hard at their bishop gods. Dont you know that they can make laws outside the word of God, command the Spirit on demand, at at the words hocus pocus make bread change into the natural body of Jesus. Lol k

    Reply

    1. DR. GUS–
       You said: “Invoked by a priest, who represents the apostolic sucession that adheres in the magisterium, where the cardinals together with the pope determine or define every sacrament. Who gave the priest, or the cardinal or the pope the power to INVOKE THE HOLY SPIRIT.?

       Well, like you say, they use the method equivalent to the Urim and Thummim.

       You also said: “Protestants believe, based on the Scripture that the ONLY one who can invoke the Spirit is the Ascended Messiah.”

       Can you quote that scripture for me?

       Reply

       1. With great pleasure for the opportunity to serve you.

          16 “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever–
          17 “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
          18 “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
          19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
          20 “At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. (Jn. 14:16-20 NKJ)

          How would Jesus not leave them orphans? By coming to them in the Spirit. See: Phil. 1:19. Thereby he proves that he is in the father and the father is in him. The western church unlike the eastern affirms the filioque clause, that is, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

          “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever– (Jn. 14:16 NKJ). Only Jesus can pray for [invoke] the Spirit.

          “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. (Jn. 14:26 NKJ)The fact that the Spirit comes in the name of Jesus Christ is a biblicism that mean “in the power and by the authority” of Jesus Christ.” When we pray in the name of Jesus we are requesting an answer to prayer based on the authority of Christ, when Christ requests the Father to send the Spirit he is invoking the Spirit by his authority as the Messiah. Christ’s prayers and my prayers, are the same vehicles, BUT Christ has intrinsic power I do not, and neither does any other human being. See: ! Tim. 2:5 there is only one [intervener invoker gobetween mediator] between God and men.

          “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. (Jn. 15:26 NKJ) Notice that here the Spirit is SENT by Christ, yet in 14:26 he proceeds from the father. There is no contradiction for the father is in the son, and vice versa. Therefore only Christ can invoke the Spirit, we can pray for his coming but we cannot invoke him. [Invoke=(in the strict sense) to call forth or upon (a spirit) by incantation; to cause, call forth, or bring about.]

          “Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. (Jn. 16:7 NKJ) Once again Jesus says I WILL SEND HIM.

          Notice also the instructions given to believers at the ascension:

          4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4-5 NKJ) He commanded the apostles (including Peter) to wait. Why did they not just invoke the Holy Spirit?

          22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (Jn. 20:22-23 NKJ) If the earthly representatives, the ones that he personally chose could INVOKE the Spirit why did Jesus have to breathe on them, thereby communicating the promise of the Spirit, and INVOKE Him by saying “Receive the Spirit”. He promised and invoked the Spirit, and they had to wait until Pentecost to receive the Spirit. They did not INVOKE the Spirit. If the apostles could not invoke the Spirit, what makes you think that the pope and his representatives can?

          Gus

          Reply

          1. Gus, this is excellent. Also when we say to someone who has believed your sins are forgiven, it is a statement about something already true, the declaration doesnt make it true. But with many of these MINO ( methodist in name only lol) they dont understand to say a priest is the regent of Christ in the mass, or of the Spirit, is utter blasphemy. But they love their boshop gods. K

             Reply

    2. Invocare–
       to summon; to address in prayer; to solicit or demand by invocation.

       The last time somebody claimed to summon or demanded that the Holy Spirit come this is what Jesus called it–

       But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
       29 “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.
       30 “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
       31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
       32 “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:28-32 NKJ)

       It is an insult to the sovereign Spirit to demand He come, as though, like a demon He is bound by some kind of incantation, to appear. Oh wait–thats exactly what Rome teaches when the priest says “ti obsolvo in nome di…” at auricular confession, and at the consecration to oblate which occurs in the mass. The Spirit is invoked to convert the bread into flesh. He is not a demon. The only hope for Romanists is that they blaspheme in ignorance and therefore they can repent. Paul said that God forgave him because he blasphemed in ignorance. See:

       13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, (1 Tim. 1:13 ESV)

       Gus

       Reply

       1. DR. GUS–
          Maybe you misunderstand the epiclesis. To whom do you think we are directing the prayer? In whose name do we ask?
          What do not understand when Jesus said:
          13“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
          14“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” ???

          Reply

66. Dr Gus said ” The Holy Spirit is soveriegn and does not inhere in a sacrament.” Yes and the priest doesnt become His regent. The Roman church cant substitute itself for the unique finished work of Christ as the agency of redemption. Churches dont connect us to God, no church owns God. The church isnt the same as Jesus Christ in the world. He comes to us in the gospel by HIS choosing. The Spirit blows where and when He wills. Churches arent continuing incarnations. They can obey Christ, imitate Him, carry on His mission, but they cant usurp his uniquely finished work. Of course in Rome He can never get off the cross to save them. Its simply ” worthiness of merit” the go out and do your part gospel. Sad. K

    Reply

    1. K–
       What is even sadder is that they believe it, and like my dad, die thinking only purgatory awaits them. My dad died of cancer. When he heard this, he shook his fist at god, not himself for smoking a pack and a half for 50 years of his life. He died a communicant member of the Roman “Church”. A true “natalini-pasqualini”

       Gus

       Reply

       1. Gus, wow, and so many others. People say JP2 was good, he suffered, etc. 26 years in that position and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Our hearts should break for that man. He committed his whole life and the life of the church into the hands of Mary. He had it sewn into his papal garments. One Cardinal said we prayed for him, now we are going to pray to him. Another guardian of Catholic theology whose soul trusted in Mary. There are only 2 religions in this world, human achievement or divine acconplishment. Unfortunately, there are those here trusting the Roman system of human achievement to save them. Very sad. K

          Reply

67. K–
    What is far sadder are the so-called Protestant “useful idiots” who are reconciling with Rome such as ELCA.
    http://www.augsburg.edu/news/2010/08/13/a-thousand-miles-for-reconciliation-with-rome/

    http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/catholic-lutheran-leaders-urge-joint-study-of-reconciliation-document-24449

    The document for lutheran/roman reconciliation is:
    download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Declaration_on_the_Way.pdf?_ga=1.225910867.890430592.1448396081

    Gus

    Reply

    1. Ya, Macarthur says Protestants ignorance in this is only matched by their lack of courage. At least he, Sproul, and Horton wouldnt sign those useless ECT docs. Tolerance can tolerate everything but intoletance. False teaching always cries disunity and intoletance. I can smell it a mule away. K

       Reply

68. Hey CK—
    “Author: CK
    Comment:
    Gustavo said – Bob–
    You have twisted scripture. Be intellectually honest enough to admit that the Scriptures can be twisted into meaning anything when you impose a meaning on them rather than letting them speak for themselves.

    Me – anyone can twist Scripture into meaning anything, including you, right? Now be honest 😉”

    Being smarmy gets you no points.

    14 The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near. (Prov. 10:14 ESV)

    Meditate on that.

    Gus

    Reply

    1. Aren’t you being smarmy by implying that BOB is twisting Scripture? Anyone can twist Scripture to get the results we want, including you and me. That’s why SS can be so dangerous and why we have thousands of denominations.

       Reply

69. CK–
    you said
    ___________________________________________________
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    Dr. Gustavo I didn’t realize you were a Dr. I hope you don’t mind if I follow BOB and refer to you at Dr. Gus.

    Dr. Gus said – I WAS a devout romanist, until i realized the hypocrisy of eating bread and then screwing around on your wife, getting drunk, cussing out your neighbor, etc. THEN I became a devout atheist, and laughed at both Romanists and Christians.

    Me – so would you encourage people to leave Christianity because 17% of Jesus APOSTLES denied Him? One of the twelve stole and betrayed Him for silver coins. Following your line of thinking you made the right choice to become an atheist.

    Can you point me to a church that does not have hypocrites? The Apostles couldn’t meet your standards.
    __________________________________

    Inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Inconsistency is sinning because you’re weak or ignorant. Saul of Tarsus was not a hypocrite, he was a sincere blasphemer who out of ignorance persecuted Christians. Judas was a hypocrite because he PRETENDED to follow Christ—while he was pilfering the common purse.

    A hypocrite says he serves God and then sodomizes little altar boys. An inconsistent Christian repents when he is convinced of sin. The church is made up of all inconsistent sinners and SOME hypocrites. The inconsistent ones we help gently Gal. 6:1 and the hypocrites we find out and excommunicate:

    ESV 2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
    2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.
    3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Pet. 2:1-3 ESV)

    10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
    11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.
    12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
    13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
    14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
    15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
    16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
    17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.”
    19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
    (Jude 1:10-19 ESV)

    Gus

    Reply

    1. So are you implying that most Catholics are hypocrites? Judge much? How do you know who has and who has not repented?

       Reply

       1. I dont imply anything i state it. Most Roman Catholics have been lied to and deceived. A few are hypocrites, but of the clergy they’re almost completely hypocrites. How do i know? Because they haven’t repented, they’re STILL offering the sacrifice of the mass. When my late friend Franco Maggioto (who taught NT Greek) in Italy, repented it was easy to see. In the middle of mass, he stopped and said [paraphrase] “this is crazy, he has already died once and for all”. From that time to his death he made it his mission to see priests and nuns converted and married. The vatican hated him for it, and tried to kill him at least once.

          Gus

          Reply

          1. So knowledge of right and wrong planes no role in your definition of a hypocrite? Are you saying all priests or most are aware that the offering at mass is wrong?

             Are Muslims, Jews, etc.. Hypocrites?

             I have read the bible and prayed about the Eucharist and have come to the conclusion that it IS the body of Christ. I’m using SS. Do you recommend I go to you for answers? Luther, Calvin? If I truly believe it does it make me a hypocrite?

             Reply

          2. Gus, frattelo Franco Magiotto comes to Christ during the abomination of the mass. Praise God. Revelations 1:17 ” I was dead but now I LIVE forevermore. How can he save them Doc, they wont let him off the cross. He is risen! And the true church sings the Amen. !

             Reply

70. CK—
    by the way, the most inconsistent christian i have ever met is me. But i am certainly no hypocrite. Besides, CK, if you repent and join us, whats one more hypocrite? Thats your logic.

    Gus

    Reply

71. Gus said ” Judas was a hypocrite because he PRETENDED to follow Christ” you mean like ” devout” people who claim to be saved by the obedience of love , but who deny grace as a FREE gift of the goodness of God. Surely Rome teaches the righteous and good are justified, while Jesus said the one who denied his own goodness went home justified. Before one can appreciate the imputed rightouness of Christ that comes through faith alone , one must see their utter spiritual bankrupcy and depth of their sinfulness . Only God can show that to ” devout Catholics” k

    Reply

72. Gus, I think of you, Tim, and many other Reformed who grew up with the message pounded into you that you are a failing kidney patient and you have to get that eucharist to live. The ” summit of salvation” Without eating it and adoring it you cant survive. And yet the bible says the righteous shall LIVE by faith. It takes faith to walk away from that Roman eucharist where a church has told them without it they cant be saved. Only God can produce that faith in Catholics. They must give up their bread god, and earning increases of salvation at their altar to be able to trust Christ alone for their salvation. If you think about it, its a clever system. Its like a captor keeping his subject from leaving by threatening death. Rome keeps their people trapped in that false system saying that there is no salvation outside of their church and its eucharist. They must believe in a church to be saved. To deny the pope is to be excomunicated as a Catholic. Its so sad, my wife and I have so many friends caught up in this system headed for hell. But, i believe Tim is correct, God is calling his elect out of that communion Rev. 18:4, and true believers cant stay in that ” worthiness of merit” gospel and church. Those who understand that we dont work for grace , but simply receive the gift by faith alone in Christ alone, cant stay in that communion. K

    Reply

    1. DR. GUS–
       You said: “You have twisted scripture. Be intellectually honest enough to admit that the Scriptures can be twisted into meaning anything when you impose a meaning on them rather than letting them speak for themselves.”

       You need to be intellectually honest to admit it yourself. Have you let your preconceived notion of the “Anti-Christ papacy” impose a meaning on them rather than letting them speak for themselves? Sure you have! Your stark Calvinism has shaded your perception even toward your fellow Reformation denominations–Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Primative Baptists, Nazareans, and even the different Synodal sects of Presbyterians –all of which have a little different interpretation of the Scriptures than you. We all do.
       The fact is, you have rejected the true sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and now have built this entire defense of that rejection by twisting Scripture to that end. And I have to admit you have done it very well. Luther was right in his fear that the “Baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.” And all you and Kevin seem to say is “Good riddance!” and revel in saying to those of us who believe in the Body and Blood of Jesus as He commanded, “How sad they are” and “Lol, look at those poor idolaters.”
       It sure sounds like you are handing out anathemas of your own. But you are not aiming them at just the “Romanists”, it hits all of us who believe in His Presence–Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox.

       You have chosen your own ways, and your soul delights in it. I may be an ignorant troll, but I’m not stupid. I see it in your writing. It’s no wonder why people say that Presbyterians are stuck on themselves. Rome had their time to chase people away from the Church. Looks like it’s the Presbyterians turn.

       Reply

73. Gus wrote:

    “Walt you need to repent. I have called you to it. I know how the RPCNA works. Anything I send to you would be rejected because I do not have standing in your courts. Very convenient. I do not read anywhere that the apostle Paul gave the Galatian church a fifty page document proving Peter’s hypocrisy before he rebuked him publicly. He who uses process to avoid repentance is a Pharisee.”

    Gus, I did not stay anything about you having to write a 50 page document proving my sin against Tim. You have charged me publicly with sin against Tim, and I’ve explained I am willing to repent once you prove to me the sin. I’ve just read a few very very extensive posts you have made, and it is becoming very clear to me that you are a very confident expert in your knowledge of Westminster, reformed history and scripture. This is very useful to aid you in being very accurate in specifically identifying and quoting exactly the sin you allege against me. It does not have to be 50 pages, but as fast and as much as you write I believe it would not take you anytime to write extensive amounts of words to make your allegations, which sufficient proofs.

    I look forward to more facts when you find the time.

    Reply

74. “”The principle of Church Establishments, properly understood… is just the principle of national religion. It has many ramifications all springing from an acknowledgement of the universal supremacy of Christ, and bearing upon the duty of nations and their rulers to promote the advancement of true religion, and the prosperity of Christ’s cause and kingdom. It is connected with the protection of the Sabbath… (it) assumes that nations are moral and responsible creatures, accountable to God in their corporate capacity, and the proper subjects of rewards and punishments. It implies that wherever God’s Word exists, its existence and influence ought to be nationally acknowledged as the only supreme authority and the fountain of law… All this is very powerfully expounded and enforced in this volume” (James Begg from the Preface).

    In short, this book shows how civil powers are to acknowledge Christ as King, and to civilly sanction all those who publicly promote Satan’s kingdom (whether by cries of equality, neutrality, or toleration of lies, deception, heresy or idolatry).”

    The Establishment Principle Defended (1873), William Balfour

    http://www.puritandownloads.com/the-establishment-principle-defended-1873-by-william-balfour/

    ————
    Messiah, Governor of the Nations of the Earth (1803) by Alexander M’Leod

    http://pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpcgs/mcleod.html

    http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/18/alexander-mcleods-sermon-on-messiah-governor-of-the-nations-of-the-earth

    —————–
    “Maintains the universal supremacy of Christ as King of the nations, as well as King of the saints, with the consequent duty of nations as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, to honor and serve Him by recognizing His truth and promoting His cause. Demonstrates that this position was “the unanimous testimony of the Reformers” and proves this truth from both the OT and the NT. Answers common objections, which are often arguments from abuse, while refuting the opposing error of Voluntaryism showing its sectarian nature. A marvelous little book that is much needed in our day! As the author notes, “Let us keep to the King’s highway trod by the martyrs and Reformers, and in the name of our God display our banners that Christ is the Prince of the kings of the earth, and that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve Him and His Cause shall perish, yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.”

    Christ’s Kingship Over the Nations Maintained and Defended in the Establishment Principle, or, The Principle of the National Recognition of Religion, C. J. Brown

    http://www.puritandownloads.com/christs-kingship-over-the-nations-maintained-and-defended-in-the-establishment-principle-or-the-principle-of-the-national-recognition-of-religion-by-c-j-brown/

    ————-
    George Smeaton notes, “I have often said that in the Scottish theory we have the ultimate truth on the whole subject of the relations between Church and State, the result of the prayerful investigations and earnest contendings of some of the clearest minds and loftiest characters that adorned the Christian Church during the last three centuries.”

    This is one of the best short treatments of this subject to be found anywhere. It provides key definitions and should help to clear up many misunderstandings, from both the antiestablishmentarians and those Anglican and Continental theories of “State Churches” which have falsely saddled this liberating and God-honoring truth with odiousness to some.

    In short, Smeaton argues,
    “It will be necessary, before proceeding farther, to lay down some positions of a more general nature as they are pre-supposed or come to light in every instance of Church Establishment. I shall do little more than state them as fundamental postulates, and I may the sooner come to what is more peculiarly Scottish.

    The propriety of Ecclesiastical Establishments may be advocated briefly as follows: The State, considered in its corporate character, is a MORAL PERSON, with a moral standing and responsibility. It is not the creation of the so-called social compact or of the popular will, but a divine institution based on natural religion. It coheres by a moral and religious bond; and its rulers are the lieutenants of God. If the State is a moral person, capable of performing duty, of committing sin, and suffering punishment, which everyone must own who traces the fate of nations according to the divine word, it follows that a nation, acting by its rulers, can accept Christianity and make a public profession of it as the national rule and guide.

    It had been held together previous to the recognition of Christianity by some form of religion however impure, without which it could not have existed. And the first duty of the civil ruler when brought in contact with Christianity and persuaded of its divine origin is to RECEIVE THE BIBLE AS A REVELATION in a national way. The immediate effect of this is that it constitutes the State a Christian State, and pledges it to purge out its previous religion in the same way as Pagan and Mahommedan nations constituted themselves, according to their false religions, or as the atheistic state was constituted, or rather attempted to be constituted, by the French Convention.

    A nation must have a religion, and the only question is, which it will adopt. And when Christianity comes to the nation, or to the family, it does not frown on either of these institutions, which also are divine in origin, but enters into them with an elevating purifying power, and sweetly coalesces with all that is purely human in both.

    These ordinances of God now became vessels by which Christianity is diffused. The national recognition of the Bible as a revelation subjecting the nation to its authority, though a great step gained, does not exhaust the nation’s duty, as widely diverging views prevail upon the right interpretation of the Bible. The State must by the necessity of the case ADOPT A CREED which will commonly be prepared by the Church.

    The same duty that devolves upon an individual Christian confronts a Christian State, and it naturally appends the civil sanction to the Church’s creed. It must distinguish between scripture truth and its perversion. The State, by the adoption of a creed, gives utterance to the self-consciousness of a Christian community. It confesses the Christianity it has adopted.”– From pp. 4-5.

    The Scottish Theory of Ecclesiastical Establishments (1875), George Smeaton

    http://www.puritandownloads.com/the-scottish-theory-of-ecclesiastical-establishments-1875-by-george-smeaton/

    Reply

    1. Walt,

       From what I am able to gather from these references, the establishment theory as defended appears to assume that the strike of the Stone is one, single, swift judicial act. For example, M’leod in his Sermon on Messiah, Governor of the Nations of Earth has Jesus taking dominion immediately upon his ascent based on Daniel 7:14 (I.4), and has Jesus as the destroyer of the Roman Empire at His incarnation based on Daniel 2:34-35 (Objection II.1). Likewise, William Balfour in The Establishment Principle Defended, justifies his position based on Daniel 7:14,27 (p. 133).

       Daniel 7:14 and 27 surely have Jesus taking “dominion,” but I do not believe the writers of the second reformation addressed the fact that “dominion” in Chapter 7 refers to “earthly” dominion, and the angelic narrator does not have Jesus taking “dominion” until after the lives of the preceding empires have been prolonged (Daniel 7:12)—that is, after Antichrist, and then only after the second judicial movement when all the preceding empires are ground to dust. When Daniel 2 and 7 are harmonized, there is a strike of the stone against the 4th empire (Daniel 2:34, Daniel 7:11), the saints take possession of a heavenly kingdom (Daniel 2:44, Daniel 7:18), then the antichrist takes earthly dominion (Daniel 7:12, 21), then a judgment against the antichrist, which is all the empires together (Daniel 2:35, 7:26), then earthly dominion is given to Christ and his saints (Daniel 7:27).

       The position of the 2nd Reformation writers, so far as I understand it, does not harmonize Daniel 2 and 7 very well and thus interprets the impact of the stone upon the statue as a single strike at Jesus’ first advent (as shown above), and has the Little Horn of Daniel 7 consumed by the flames along with the “body” (Daniel 7:11) (as can be seen in Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. iii, pp. 71, 85) as if the body of the fourth beast and the Little Horn of the fourth beast were consumed together at once.

       In any case, because the 2nd reformation writers’ failure to harmonize Daniel 2 and 7 has caused them to arrive at an Establishment Principle that has Christianity as the 5th empire after pagan Rome, which seems to me to be a very grievous error that in fact leads men back to Rome, I cannot be persuaded of the Establishment Principle as elucidated by the 2nd Reformation writers that you have provided. We all agree that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords and that He is the creator and sustainer of all that exists and holds all things together by His word and governs all things after the counsel of His will and that the gospel of the kingdom of heaven is to be preached on earth. That is not what is in dispute.

       What the Establishment Principle appears to come down to is not a dispute over God’s sovereignty but a dispute over Jesus’ earthly, civil dominion. To arrive at the Establishment Principle, and the obligation of civil powers to do the bidding of the church, the 2nd Reformation writers had to rely heavily upon Daniel 2 and 7 in their interpretation, and I think they got it terribly wrong. I note, as well, that Elliott has the “man-child” of Revelation 12 not referring to Christ but to the church come to full stature as a “body politic” on earth, able to coerce the pagans into submission with a rod of iron, seated on God’s throne in the former Roman empire. It’s all about the civil earthly dominion of Christ and His saints, and when it is prophesied to occur. As far as I can tell, there is only one entity that obtains earthly, civil dominion before the return of Christ, and it is Antichrist. Thus, unfortunately, the 2nd Reformation writers claim the first 400 years of Antichrist as Church history, something I cannot accept. Perhaps I am blind. Perhaps a fool. Perhaps unintelligent. Perhaps all three. In any case, that is where I am.

       I suppose that puts us at an impasse since I cannot be persuaded that the Stone constitutes a single judicial act, and the 2nd Reformation writers—so far as I can tell—are united on the singularity of the strike of the stone and the fact that the Little Horn is consumed by the flames at the same time the fourth beast’s body was. I hope you don’t take it personally—I just do not believe the 2nd Reformation writers got it right, and in fact I think in some ways they perpetuated a grievous error.

       If you have any Scriptural responses to my understanding of the two judicial movements, I would appreciate it. Or if you have any Scriptural responses on the matter of the three extra horns, I would appreciate that, too.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim, how does the eye test play into this? Iow, if God is going to christianize institutions and civil powers and things are going to get better, better, better, then why would Christ need to come back and destroy all earhly power and kingdoms and authority? As I look around, it doesnt seem like Christ is instituting his kingdom thru earthly civil governments, but on the contrary are temporary vessels of Satan? What say you? K

          Reply

75. Walt, read my recent posts. I provide the exact quote where you call Tim a hypocrite. K

    Reply

76. Kevin said:

    “Walt, read my recent posts. I provide the exact quote where you call Tim a hypocrite. K”

    I think Dan very effectively responded to my claims about Tim, and correctly interpreted what I said in contrary to what Tim said I meant. The literal interpretation of Scripture and what people say (ignoring the literal sense of the meaning) is a major problem with this blog and its commentators. Dan and Henry made significant comments to clarify what was at stake in the biblical principles we live by, and teach. If anyone read either comment in the spirit of fairness and charity it becomes obvious what was meant by what was said vs. all the ranting that follows week by week by you and Gus.

    I’ve sufficient read Gus comments here over the past few days and clearly his presupposition to second reformation attainments, establishmentarianism, strict subscriptionism and basic reformed fundamentals make it clear why he is such a aggressive defend of Tim’s position. They are fitting perfectly into the same glove, and outside the rants about my alleged sinful judgment and charges of calling Tim hypocritical in his claims, I am really enjoying his and Tim’s commentaries. I especially like your enthusiastic praise over near every post they make on accurately defining reformed Christianity and teaching true eschatology of Scripture…with near Scripture alone.

    I’m not going to respond to you further Kevin. I will rather sit back and learn from you and Gus and Tim the facts of history and of Scripture’s literal interpretation.

    Reply

    1. Walt said ” I think Dan very effectively responded to my claims about Tim, and correctly interpreted what I said” This is amazing, you weighed all the opinions and went with the guys in your church who said calling Tim a hypocrite really didnt mean that. I got the Covenater thing down, thanks k

       Reply

    2. Walt, one more question, you lecture me about the major problems about this blog and its people. But why would I care about your opinions when have shown arrogance, unrepentance, and pride. Clanging symbol is what you sound like to me. My dad used to tell me , what you do speaks so loud, I dont hear what you say. You make think demeaning Tim and his faithful bloggers makes your position right, but it really doesnt. You dont respect anyone who isnt a Covenater it seems to me. So go hang with your boys where you have safe cover. Seriously Walt, you just told me you arent going to engage me on here, and then you turn around and lecture me. Please. K

       Reply

77. CK–
    you said______________________________________________________
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    So knowledge of right and wrong planes no role in your definition of a hypocrite? Are you saying all priests or most are aware that the offering at mass is wrong?

    Are Muslims, Jews, etc.. Hypocrites?

    I have read the bible and prayed about the Eucharist and have come to the conclusion that it IS the body of Christ. I’m using SS. Do you recommend I go to you for answers? Luther, Calvin? If I truly believe it does it make me a hypocrite?
    _______________________________________________________________

    To clarify–
    If i miscommunicated i apologize. Clarity is important. Hypocrisy in scripture is defined as “ὑπόκρισις
    ὑπόκρισις, εως, ἡ hypocrisy, pretense, outward show Mt 23:28; Mk 12:15; Lk 12:1; Gal 2:13; Js 5:12 v.l.; 1 Ti 4:2; 1 Pt 2:1.* Pretense is defined as “[noun]
    1. pretending or feigning; make-believe:
    My sleepiness was all pretense.
    2. a false show of something: a pretense of friendship.
    3. a piece of make-believe.
    4. the act of pretending or alleging falsely.
    5. a false allegation or justification: He excused himself from the lunch on a pretense of urgent business.
    6. insincere or false profession: His pious words were mere pretense.
    7. the putting forth of an unwarranted claim.
    8. the claim itself.
    9. any allegation or claim: to obtain money under false pretenses.
    10. pretension (usually followed by to): destitute of any pretense to wit.
    11. pretentiousness.
    (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretense?s=t)

    The synonynms are:
    1. shamming.
    2. semblance.
    3. mask, veil.

    The pharisees were very religious, yet Jesus called them hypocrites because THEY DID NOT MEAN IT. It is difficult to tell sometimes whether a person is a hypocrite or sincere but inconsistent. But to answer you directly:
    1.The knowledge of right and wrong plays the essential role in hypocrisy. To know the right and not do it INTENTIONALLY and yet pretend to either not know it or to have done it is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy can also be defined as believing inwardly one thing but doing outwardly and intentionally another. A good example is the Jesuit doctrine of prevarication. (The whole doctrine of the Jesuits, an order started by Ignatius of Loyola, to counter the reformation, and enforce papal authority can be found here http://archive.org/stream/doctrineofjesuit00bert/doctrineofjesuit00bert_djvu.txt. It is a very illuminating document and shows that for centuries the Jesuits have been well know to be PROFESSIONAL HYPOCRITES–all with the blessings of the Magisterium.) To quote:
    The 16th-century Spanish theologian Martin de Azpilcueta (often called “Navarrus” because he was born in the Kingdom of Navarre) wrote at length about the doctrine of mentalis restrictio or mental reservation. Navarrus held that mental reservation involved truths “expressed partly in speech and partly in the mind,” relying upon the idea that God hears what is in one’s mind while human beings hear only what one speaks. Therefore, the Christian’s moral duty was to tell the truth to God. Reserving some of that truth from the ears of human hearers was moral if it served a greater good. This is the doctrine of strict mental reservation. A user of the doctrine could reply “I know not” aloud to a human interlocutor, and “to tell you” silently to God, and still be telling the truth (stricte mentalis).

    Traditionally, the doctrine of mental reservation was intimately linked with the concept of equivocation, which allowed the speaker to employ double meanings of words to tell the literal truth while concealing a deeper meaning. Navarrus, however, went beyond this, giving the doctrine of mental reservation a far broader and more liberal interpretation than had anyone up to that time. Although some other Catholic theological thinkers and writers took up the argument in favor of strict mental reservation, the concept remained controversial within the Roman Catholic Church, which never officially endorsed or upheld the doctrine and eventually condemned it.

    The linked doctrines of mental reservation and equivocation became notorious in England during the Elizabethan era and the Jacobean era, when Jesuits who had entered England to minister to the spiritual needs of Catholics were captured by the authorities. The Jesuits Robert Southwell (c. 1561–1595) (who was also a poet of note) and Henry Garnet (1555–1606) both wrote treatises on the topic, which was of far more than academic interest to them. Both risked their lives bringing the sacraments to recusant Catholics — and not only their lives, since sheltering a priest was a capital offence.[4] In 1586, Margaret Clitherow had been pressed to death for refusing to enter a plea on the charge of harbouring two priests at York.[5] When caught, tortured and interrogated, Southwell and Garnet practiced mental reservation not to save themselves — their deaths were a foregone conclusion — but to protect their fellow believers.[4]

    Southwell, who was arrested in 1592, was accused at his trial of having told a witness that even if she was forced by the authorities to swear under oath, it was permissible to lie to conceal the whereabouts of a priest. Southwell replied that that was not what he had said. He had said that “to an oath were required justice, judgement and truth”, but the rest of his answer goes unrecorded because one of the judges angrily shouted him down.[6] Convicted in 1595, Southwell was hanged, drawn and quartered. More famous in his own era was Henry Garnet, who wrote a defense of Southwell in 1598; Garnet was captured by the authorities in 1606 due to his alleged involvement in the Gunpowder Plot. Facing the same accusations as Southwell, his attempts to defend himself met with no better result: later that year Garnet was executed in the same fashion.

    The Protestants considered these doctrines as mere justifications for lies. Catholic ethicists also voiced objections: the Jansenist “Blaise Pascal…attacked the Jesuits in the seventeenth century for what he saw as their moral laxity.”[7] “By 1679, the doctrine of strict mental reservation put forward by Navarrus had become such a scandal that Pope Innocent XI officially condemned it.”[8] Other casuists justifying mental reservation included Thomas Sanchez, who was criticized by Pascal in his Provincial Letters – although Sanchez added various restrictions (it should not be used in ordinary circumstances, when one is interrogated by competent magistrates, when a creed is requested, even for heretics, etc.), which were ignored by Pascal. Of the 26 theses condemned by Pope Innocent XI, several were in Sanchez’s works (see op. mor. in præc. Decalogi, III, vi, n. 15). One of them stated:
    “ If anyone, by himself, or before others, whether under examination or of his own accord, whether for amusement or for any other purpose, should swear that he has not done something which he has really done, having in mind something else which he has not done, or some way of doing it other than the way he employed, or anything else that is true: he does not lie nor perjure himself. ”

    This type of equivocation was famously mocked in the porter’s speech in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in which the porter directly alludes to the practice of deceiving under oath by means of equivocation.
    “ Faith, here’s an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3) ”

    See, for example Robert Southwell and Henry Garnet, author of A Treatise of Equivocation (published secretly c. 1595)—to whom, it is supposed, Shakespeare was specifically referring.[citation needed] Shakespeare made the reference to priests because the religious use of equivocation was well known in those periods of early modern England (e.g. under James VI/I) when it was a capital offence for a Roman Catholic priest to enter England. A Jesuit priest would equivocate in order to protect himself from the secular authorities without (in his eyes) committing the sin of lying. For example, he could use the ambiguity of the word “a” (meaning “any” or “one”) to say “I swear I am not a priest”, because he could have a particular priest in mind who he was not. That is, in his mind, he was saying “I swear I am not one priest” (e.g. “I am not Father Brown”.)

    According to Malloch and Huntley (1966), this doctrine of permissible “equivocation” did not originate with the Jesuits. They cite a short treatise, in cap. Humanae aures, that had been written by Martin Azpilcueta (also known as Doctor Navarrus), an Augustinian who was serving as a consultant to the Apostolic Penitentiary.[9] It was published in Rome in 1584. The first Jesuit influence upon this doctrine was not until 1609, “when Suarez rejected Azpilcueta’s basic proof and supplied another” (speaking of Francisco Suárez).

    Following Innocent XI’s condemnation of strict mental reservation, equivocation (or wide mental reservation) was still considered orthodox, and was revived and defended by Alphonsus Liguori. The Jesuit Gabriel Daniel wrote in 1694 Entretiens de Cleanthe et d’Eudoxe sur les lettres provinciales, a reply to Pascal’s Provincial Letters in which he accused Pascal of lying, or even of having himself used mental reservation, by not mentioning all the restrictions imposed by Sanchez on the use of this form of deception.
    2. I would say most priests know that the mass is a forgery. There are sincere priests, who therefore are not hypocrites. But their sincerity does not save them. Sincerity in heresy, as for instance a sincere Mormon, vitiates eternal punishment but it does not eliminate it. See: (Rev. 20:12 NAS) 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
    3. Muslims Jews atheists, Mormons satanists are not hypocrites if they are sincere. Sincerity does not save you. People dont go to heaven because they REALLY believed what they said they believed. There are no sincere cannibals and pedophiles in heaven.
    4. Praying about the eucharist and sincerely believing that it is the body of Christ is tantamount to a homosexual saying I prayed about my homosexuality and REALLY believe its a gift from God. The president of Apple, Tim Cook said that. Is he going to heaven? You are not a hypocrite, you are very sincere. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You are sincerely wrong. There is no point in praying about something that the Bible already reveals. When I was a pastor of a church a woman, “filled with the Holy Spirit” told me that there was no anointing in her marriage so she sincerely believed she should leave her husband. She was about to embark not only on adultery, but put her husband through an excruciating and painful experience that could destroy him. So i did the only thing i could to try and save him. I asked her is he an adulterer, an abuser, does he beat her? And she said no. Then i said, “well, then you are a whore” Blunt. She left. A few weeks later she literally ran into my office just long enough to say “And I am not a whore”! Then she ran out. That was her way of dealing with the weight of what i said–hit and run. That’s what i notice about alot of Roman Catholic apologists. They hit and run. They’ll argue scripture until they see they cant win, and then switch to accusations. Like you are doing right now. I DONT DOUBT YOUR SINCERITY. AND I DONT DOUBT THAT UNLESS YOU REPENT AND BELIEVE IN THE CHRIST OF THE BIBLE BY REPUDIATING THE EFFICACY OF THE EUCHARIST AND EMBRACING THE CHRIST OF SCRIPTURE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. You never should have come here, because now you have KNOWLEDGE of what Scripture says. AND to repudiate the Bible out of KNOWLEDGE rather than ignorance makes it more and more probable that you are a hypocrite. Because what turns a man from sincere to hypocrite? It is the dawning realisation in his heart of hearts that what he is doing is wrong.

    1(b)…paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; (1 Tim. 4:1-4 NAS)

    Who forbids marriage, who made it a sin to eat meat on Friday, AND THEN changed their minds? The Antichrist of course:

    25 ‘And he will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. (Dan. 7:25 NAS)

    You would have been better off to stay ignorant than to know and reject. At least your degree of punishment in hell would have been lesser. BUT repent, and i will do everything in my power, I will move heaven and earth, to help you. I speak out of love NOT hate. Your eternal soul is at stake.

    Sincerely,

    Gus,
    altar boy,
    Capuchin student,
    redeemed sinner

    Reply

78. Gus,

    I’m really glad you disclosed this method of your ministry. I was trying to read between the lines of your posts this past week, and how you brought pubic charges against me in support of Tim’s scripture alone position of interpretation. After reading this today, I really do hope some of my other friends will read this to get a much more accurate position on what they can expect to see here on this blog in the future with your “direct” truth to correct the sinner.

    “When I was a pastor of a church a woman, “filled with the Holy Spirit” told me that there was no anointing in her marriage so she sincerely believed she should leave her husband. She was about to embark not only on adultery, but put her husband through an excruciating and painful experience that could destroy him. So i did the only thing i could to try and save him. I asked her is he an adulterer, an abuser, does he beat her? And she said no. Then i said, “well, then you are a whore” Blunt. She left. A few weeks later she literally ran into my office just long enough to say “And I am not a whore”! Then she ran out. That was her way of dealing with the weight of what i said–hit and run.”

    Again, thank you for this statement. It is very helpful to me, and I hope it will be to others.

    Reply

79. I know what you are implying. Your maliciousness is obvious. Why dont you be a man and come out with it instead of implying that you are going to figure out a way to sabotage me? Veiled threats I guess are a 2nd reformation doctrine.

    So LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR:
    If you do anything slanderous or libelous to harm my person or reputation I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO MAKE SURE YOU WILL REGRET EVER THREATENING ME.

    IF I MISCONSTRUED YOU, I APOLOGIZE BUT IF I HAVE READ YOU RIGHT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

    GUS

    P.S. To everyone on this website, with no exceptions, I apologize for making this public. I construe Walt’s latest comment as a veiled threat. I take threats very seriously. I did this in public because he did this in public. I do not mean to drag this into an open forum.

    Reply

    1. Gus, if you go to reprove a fool he will slap you in the face saith the scripture. This is Walt’s modus operandi. He is just looking for an excuse not to deal with your rebuke. He will never admit to fault. I mean his advisors have come here to defend him. Unless you are a covenanter you or I have no standing. I think your previous advice to ignore him is fitting. God bless. I think the time you have taken with Bob and CK has been excellent and loving in your explanations brother. K

       Reply

80. Gus said:

    “So LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR:
    If you do anything slanderous or libelous to harm my person or reputation I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO MAKE SURE YOU WILL REGRET EVER THREATENING ME.”

    This reminds me of the same claims made by leaders in the Christian Identity movement. I used to watch them in discussion making it clear that anyone who does not believe what they teach about the true elect will face their wrath, and they will be destroyed. Clearly, this statement above is evidence of the unstable nature of this individual as a Pastor, but while this method might seem justified and appeal to a very small minority in the church of Jesus Christ, it would never have been considered a stable mind among second reformation Pastors and Ministers. This is a good example of how far the current “church” of “reformed” ministers has fallen. It demonstrates the incredible sad state of our church filled with all sorts of “Pastors” and “teachers”.

    Reply

    1. Last Calvinist to proclaim an anathema is a rotten egg!

       Reply

81. Walt is no different than many who have made the stop through , Rome, Baptist, Charismatic, Church of Scotland etc, they are looking for that magisterium they miss and once had. Walt has found it, and you and everything outside of it are not separated brethren, but schismatics. He is the one tossed by every wind of doctrine. Things aren’t always as they appear

    Reply

82. This will not get posted, but if anyone wants to see a date setter (but who denies being a date setter) see this quote. Before some seeks to pull the spec out of another person’s eye they should remove the beam from their own! 🙂

    “Kevin, I’ll get into this on more detail later, but here is a timeline that might be helpful for the purposes of an overview:

    From the Perspective of Daniel 2, 7 and 8, here is how I see the unfolding of history since Nebuchadnezzar:

    605-538 B.C. Babylonian Empire (Gold, Lion)

    538-330 B.C. Medo-Persian Empire (Silver, Bear, Ram)

    330-323 B.C. United Greek empire (Brass, He-Goat, Notable horn of the He-Goat)

    323-44 B.C. Divided Greek empire (Brass, Four-headed Leopard, He-goat, Four horns of the He-Goat)
    175 – 163 B.C. (Little Horn of Daniel 8)
    170-164 B.C. 2,300 literal days
    167-164 B.C. 1,290 literal days, then another 45 to get to 1,335 days, cessation of sacrifices, Abomination of Desolation (Statue of Jupiter) in the Temple

    44 B.C. – 69 A.D. Strong Roman Empire (Iron, Fourth Beast—all emperors related to or descending from Julius)
    40 A.D. return of the Statue of Jupiter, standing “in the holy place” or “where it ought not” (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14), as a harbinger of Jerusalem’s destruction

    69-293 A.D. Partly Strong but partly weak empire (Iron and Clay feet, Fourth Beast, emperors come from both commoners and aristocracy, and “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men” (Daniel 2:43))

    293 – 382 A.D. Partly Strong and Partly broken: Iron and Clay Toes (Formation of the Toes, emergence of the Horns)

    382 – 395 A.D. Emergence of the Little Horn (Subjection of Milan, Alexandria and Antioch, or the three dioceses of Italy, Egypt and Oriens to the Little Horn of Daniel 9, i.e., the Three Petrine Sees), but Little Horn does not yet claim civil power of the sword

    395 – 1655 A.D. Little Horn takes civil dominion, claiming power of the Sword
    1,260 years Perseverance of the Vaudois in the Alpine Valleys
    1,260 years when the Little Horn “shall wear out the saints of the most High”
    1,260 years during which the Beast is free to “continue” (literally ‘do’) for “forty and two months” (Revelation 13:5).
    1,260 years when the Beast is given “to make war with the saints, and to overcome them:” (Revelation 13:7)
    1,260 years when the Woman “is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Revelation 12:14).

    1655 A.D. Brutal Massacre of the Waldensians in the Alps; survivors relocated throughout Europe. Little Horn reduced back to his pre-395 A.D. dominions, and finally abandons use of Papal civil and Papal military power to coerce. Sudden rapid decline of Papal influence in Europe.

    I’ll provide more of the details later—especially regarding the Vaudois—but what also goes on in parallel with this history is the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls as I expounded in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia, The Trumpets and Bowls. By my reckoning all 7 seals are behind us, as are 6 out of seven Trumpets and 5 out of 7 Bowls, although there is a possibility that we are in the middle of the 6th Bowl.

    In all of this, and in light of Daniel and Revelation, I just don’t see a period prophesied when the Church has civil powers on earth until Christ returns. Perhaps someone can persuade me otherwise using the Scriptures. I do not yet have eyes to see it.

    I hope that helps.

    Tim”

    Reply

    1. Walt,

       Your accusation was that I am like E. G. White, setting prophetical dates. You wrote,

       “Why discuss speculative prophecy with Benny Hinn, Jack Van Impe, Tim Kauffman, etc. when some of your readers can learn true doctrine, discipline, form of worship and government? The whole counsel of God is fundamental to understanding all of Scripture, not just prophecy. All these self proclaimed prophecy teachers are so focused on what the 2300 days mean in Scripture they totally ignore the real fundamentals of the Christian faith. They hate doctrine, but love prophecy. They hate biblical worship, but love prophecy. They hate faithful church government, but love prophecy. They despise historical testimony of our forefathers, but love to roll the dice on prophecy and prediction. They love debate and controversy in setting prophetical dates, but cannot stand truth and unity..” (Walt, July 2, 2017)

       And then the example you provide is one of me explaining a timeline of past events that are verifiable rather than predicting a future date that is not.

       And yet, here is your opinion on historicist date setters:

       “I can think of only 3 date setters in historicist theories that have been wrong so far and we will have till wait till 2060AD to see if slaying of the witnesses fulfill the 1260 year period.” ()

       And here is a sermon you sent me from Pastor Greg Price, engaging in the very “E. G. White” date setting, of which I am accused:

       “I also submit that this reviving of the Roman Empire under Emperors is most likely the date from which we should begin the 1,260 year period, in which the civil Beast of Revelation is united with the Whore of Babylon in warring against Christ and the faithful witnesses of Christ. If this date is accurate at which to begin the 1,260 years, that would mean that the date in which the Beast of Revelation would be destroyed by Christ (per Revelation 19:19-20) is in 2060, with the millennium to follow. For as indicated in the previous sermon, it is the revived eighth head of the Beast that is the Beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit to make war against the faithful Church of Christ (Revelation 11:7) for 42 months or 1,260 years (Revelation 13:5). ” (Pastor Greg Price, Who Is The Beast Of Revelation?, November 25, 2012)

       Prophetical date setting, Walt, is predicting a future date at which certain prophetical dates will occur—it is what you and the prophets of the Kirk of Scotland have done, just like E. G. White. Determining past dates when certain events actually occurred is not Prophetical date setting.

       What ever else the prophets of the church of Scotland have taught you, they have also instructed you to accuse others of the sins in which you currently engage, and to accuse without any evidence. And yet there is plainly evidence that you and your prophets ACTUALLY do the things of which you accuse others, but for some reason, that doesn’t count as a sin in the courts of the Kirk.

       That’s hypocrisy, Walt, of the worst sort. Predicting a 2060 date of Christ’s return to destroy antichrist IS DATE SETTING and you and your prophets are engaged in it. Claiming that antichrist arose in the latter part of the 4th century, and then took civil power as a successor to Rome IS NOT DATE SETTING.

       Enough of this hypocrisy, Walt. You are under moderation because you are a rank hypocrite, not because you have somehow dealt biblically with my “error.”

       Good day,

       Tim

       Reply