Follow
In our previous installments of this series, we addressed the structure of Revelation 12 in which John provides a time frame for the events described, as well as the identity of the Woman and her Man Child as well as the duration of her time in the wilderness (Revelation 12:1-6). As we noted in part 1, the time frame of the chapter covers the period of the persecution by the Little Horn of Daniel 8 for “time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7) through the persecution by the Little Horn of Daniel 7 for “time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25). The chapter thus straddles not only the transition of the Woman from National Israel to Ecclesial Israel, but also the transition of world empires from Bronze to Iron to Iron & Clay in the statue of Daniel 2, from Legs to Feet to Toes. In part 2, we showed that the flight of the Woman must therefore occur in the period of the Toes of Daniel 2—after the 5th Seal of Revelation 6 but before the rise of the Little Horn of Daniel 7.
This week, we will focus our attention on the last four verses of the chapter, and particularly the specific descriptions of the Woman’s Flight and the Serpent’s Flood. As the passage explains, the Woman was “given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness” and “the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood … that he might cause her to be carried away” (Revelation 12:14-15). Both the Flight and the Flood are described in sufficient detail that we may discover the meaning of them both from John’s descriptions. We will start with an exposition on the nature of the Woman’s Flight and the Serpent’s Flood, and then conclude with an analysis of the third part of the chapter: the effect of the Woman’s Flight on the Serpent, which causes him to change his mode of persecution, the form of his wrath and the target of his anger.
The Nature of the Woman’s Flight
As we noted in our article, “And Now Ye Know What Withholdeth,” the Church had for three centuries stood in the way of the worldly, carnal ambition of Roman episcopal primacy, but was eventually removed as an obstacle to it. With that resistance gone, Rome’s carnal ambition was finally realized, and “that man of sin” revealed. Paul’s reference to the Church being “taken out of the midst (μέσου)” (2 Thessalonians 2:7) correlates to the Woman being removed to the wilderness (Revelation 12:6,14). The rest of the world believed the lie and thus many fell away (2 Thessalonians 2:3,11; Revelation 13:3). These are they who follow the beast which received from the serpent “his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Revelation 13:2), and “wonder … when they behold the beast” (Revelation 17:8). The church, on the other hand, flies to the wilderness, safe “from the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14).
What we expect based on 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 12, is an exodus of the faithful Church as she is “taken out of the midst” (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and John describes the Woman’s flight in exactly those terms. The Woman is given eagle’s wings to escape to the wilderness, imitating the flight of the Hebrews from idolatrous Egypt to the wilderness of Sinai to receive the commandments of God:
“Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.” (Exodus 19:4)
The serpent lets loose a flood to ensnare the Woman, and at the same time, the earth opened its mouth to swallow the flood. The imagery is reminiscent of the earth opening its mouth to swallow up the pursuing Egyptians (Exodus 15:12), and swallowing up the men of Korah who had not believed the Word of God (Numbers 16:32). Both episodes of the earth “opening its mouth” are in the context of aiding the Hebrews in their exodus. We see the same thing in the Woman’s Flight.
Thus, Revelation 12, insofar as the Woman’s flight is concerned, is an exodus narrative, for she is departing to find safety and security in the wilderness, just as the Hebrews fled from Egypt, the land of idolatry (Ezekiel 20:7-8). In our quest for the Woman, we should therefore be looking not for her ascension as the dominant world power, as Roman Catholics do, but rather for her timely exit. That central theme of the chapter is repeated for us twice:
“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God…” (Revelation 12:6)
“And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place…” (Revelation 12:14)
She was removed to a place prepared for her, where she is fed (Revelation 12:6) and nourished (Revelation 12:14) by the Word of God—just as God’s people escaped from Egypt to receive His Word in the wilderness.
The Nature of the Serpent’s Flood
The apostle John, when describing the Lamb, observed that “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword” (Revelation 19:15), language that is strongly resonant of another writer’s description of the Word of God, for it is “sharper than any twoedged sword” (Hebrews 4:12). Notably, the Rider on the white horse of Revelation 19 is called “The Word of God” (Revelation 19:13). What proceeds from His mouth is Truth.
The antagonist in the narrative of Revelation 12 is the serpent, and something comes out of his mouth, too:
“And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood (potamon, ποταμόν) after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood (potamophorēton, ποταμοφόρητον).” (Revelation 12:15)
We note that the word for “flood” is the word used in Matthew (7:25,27) and Luke (6:48-49) when Jesus describes the house that is built upon the rock of His Word, and is therefore able to withstand the floods. Also, the word for “carried away of the flood (potamophorétos, ποταμοφόρητον)” bears with it the sense of being “carried about” by false doctrines, as in Ephesians 4:14 and Hebrews 13:9
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about (peripheromenoi, περιφερόμενοι) with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”
“Be not carried about (parapheresthe, παραφέρεσθε) with divers and strange doctrines. … ” (Hebrews 13:9)
Thus, Revelation 12, insofar as the Serpent’s flood is concerned, is a narrative about the sudden spread of “divers and strange doctrines.” The Serpent hopes the Woman will be overcome by the flood, “carried about” by his “cunning” and “craftiness” and “divers and strange doctrines.”
Clearly, however, the Lord has other plans for the Woman, for He causes the earth to protect her from the serpent’s errors and nourishes her in safety in the wilderness. The antidote to error is the Word of God, and the Woman is fed and nourished by it in the wilderness (Revelation 12:6, 14) as a means of protection from the Serpent, and then transmits that nourishment to her offspring, for they, too “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 12:17).
The Effect of the Woman’s Flight
In this last section of the chapter, vv. 14-17, we note that the Woman’s departure clearly elicits three changes in the Serpent: in the mode of his persecution, in the nature of his wrath, and in the focus of his war.
The change in the Serpent’s mode of persecution
As soon as the serpent was cast down, “he persecuted (ediōxen, ἐδίωξεν) the woman” (Revelation 12:13). This denotes a civil persecution, for the term means “to follow after,” and those saints whom he pursued “loved not their lives unto the death” (Revelation 12:11). Obedience to God’s Word was the crime, and death was the punishment. But when the Woman is “given two wings of a great eagle,” it is clear that the Serpent is no longer able to “follow after” her as before, and so he changes his tactics from one kind of persecution to another. The change is from a civil, physical form of persecution using corporal and capital punishment, to a doctrinal persecution in which he attempts to overcome the Woman by means of a flood of error that comes out of the his mouth.
The change in the nature of the Serpent’s wrath
The devil was angry at the Woman after he was cast down for he had “great wrath (thymós, θυμὸν)” toward her (Revelation 12:12). The term, thymós, comes from a root word meaning “to kill,” and conveys a sense of urgency, “because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” But after the Woman’s escape the Serpent was “wroth (orgízō, ὀργίζω)” with her (Revelation 12:17). The term, orgízō, comes from a root word meaning a natural disposition or a temper of anger, and conveys a sense of settled opposition, as if digging in for the long haul. Something has clearly changed, and the serpent’s agitation against the Woman has been frustrated. No longer able to kill or imprison her, he is left trying to assault her with error, and even that does not succeed, for the Woman was safe “from the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14).
The change in the focus of the Serpent’s war
Although the Serpent’s persecution was initially focused on the Woman, she has now fled to safety. While he is “wroth with the Woman,” he is unable to reach or follow after her, and thus instead “went to make war with the remnant of her seed” (Revelation 12:17). We notice here that “the remnant (loipōn, λοιπῶν) of her seed (spermatos, σπέρματος)” connotes plurality, in stark contrast with and distinct from the singular nature of the Man Child identified earlier in the chapter: 12:4,5 (teknon, τέκνον, male child); 12:5 (huion, υἱόν, son); 12:13 (arsena, ἄρσενα, man). It is not toward the singular Man Child that the Serpent directs his energies, for He is in heaven, but toward the plurality of the Woman’s offspring on earth. The object of the serpent’s war has clearly changed away from the Woman—for he can reach her neither by sword nor by error—and so he is left attempting to reach her offspring with his false doctrines.
The Woman’s flight has thus caused a change in the mode of the Serpent’s persecution, in the nature of his wrath, and in the object of his belligerence. He cannot persecute by imprisonment and death, he cannot persecute the Woman at all, and his wrath is no longer urgent but is nonetheless enduring. The only war he is able to execute is without the facility of corporal and capital punishment, and is targeted against the Woman’s offspring.
The reason this is so significant to us is that while the Serpent is no longer able to oppress the saints in the manner to which he was accustomed when he was first cast down, we note that the Little Horn, the Beast of Revelation 13:2, is still able to do exactly that:
“… the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; … and shall wear out the saints of the most High, … and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (Daniel 7:21,25)
“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them … ” (Revelation 13:2)
When Daniel 7, Revelation 12 and Revelation 13 are harmonized, the picture that emerges is that of a group of faithful Christians who can only be overcome by civil persecution at the hands of the Beast, but cannot be overcome by the flood of errors from the Serpent. The Beast can “make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (Revelation 13:7; c.f. Daniel 7:21), but all the while the Woman is safe “from the face of the Serpent,” and Serpent can only make war against her offspring.
The Outcome
As we have noted in our various articles and series (summarized in Longing for Nicæa, and The Object of Her Irrepressible Scorn), there was a sudden irruption of error toward the end of the fourth century, including such things as Papal and Roman episcopal primacy, the novelty that Peter had been the first bishop of Rome, the doctrine of the Three Petrine Sees, the exhumation and veneration of martyrs’ relics, the sinlessness of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the sacrifice of the Mass, baptismal regeneration, the transfer of the title of Pontifex to the Bishop of Rome, the use of candles in worship and prayers for the dead. These were soon followed by the use of incense and images in worship and the belief in the assumption of Mary.
In their aggregation these errors have a name: Roman Catholicism. The flood that emerged from the Serpent’s mouth was nothing else than the sudden step-wise emergence and nearly universal acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrines beginning at the end of the fourth century, leading up to the sum and summit, the apex and centerpiece of Roman Catholic worship at the end of the 11th century: the idolatrous adoration of the Eucharistic image. Such was the Flood that came out of the Serpent’s mouth in the latter part of the fourth century.
And where there is found such a Flood of error in the rise of Roman Catholicism, there is also found a Woman in flight, on her way to her place of refuge in the wilderness. In the latter part of the fourth century, at the same time as the Flood and the emergence of Papal primacy, there was also a group of faithful Christians who stood firmly on the rock of God’s Word (Matthew 7:25,27; Luke 6:48-49) and could not “be carried away of the flood” (Revelation 12:15).
In our search we shall find not only her resistance to the Flood, but her flight to safety as well. As she fled, those she left behind vilified her for her unwillingness to succumb to the errors, arguing hysterically that these errors must have been delivered to us by the apostles themselves, and that the Woman must accept them, too.
But the Woman would have none of it, and fled to safety. In the wake of her departure, a new religion was established on the earth, a religion both foreseen and condemned by the Prophets and Apostles who had warned of its rise. With the exception of the Woman, the whole world wondered after the new religion—it was the general apostasy of which Paul had warned us (2 Thessalonians 2:3).
Our Woman of Revelation 12 was safe but not idle in the Wilderness, and she continued faithfully to carry the light of the scriptures to the nations, sending missionaries far and wide, teaching the nations and correcting the errors of Roman Catholicism, making converts as she went. The historical record bears this out, for Roman Catholicism is nothing if not arrogant, and arrogance suffers neither correction nor competition well. For more than a thousand years, Rome wore out the saints and complained of that intractable Woman, but could stop neither her work nor the inevitable reformation movements that sprang up whithersoever she went with the Word of Truth.
As for the Serpent, his Flood could never reach the Woman, and so he was left trying to convince her offspring—those many reformation movements—to return to the bosom and errors of Rome.
We will continue the series in our next installment.
I’m so glad you identified the great flood with the false doctrine of Roman Catholicism. Few have seen this correlation and it is critical to recognizing true doctrine preached in the invisible church in well-being and the incredible false doctrine taught the masses in the worldwide visible church in being.
Doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of church government defines the true and faithful woman in the wilderness. That period is must visible during the first reformation in Scotland from 1560-1600 and the second reformation in Scotland, England and Ireland during the second reformation of 1638-1649.
The second reformation doctrines were then silenced during the Killing Times from 1679 to 1688.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Time
“Last week Findmypast released the new Scottish Covenanters 1679-1688. These records document a brave and sad period in Scottish history known as The Killing Times. They include the names of those who signed Scotland’s National Covenant in 1638 and were labelled as rebels or covenanters by the English government. The covenanters defended their faith against the intrusion of the government and their freedom to practice their religion openly. These actions led to the persecution and murder of thousands while others fled or were exiled to Ireland and the American colonies.
The covenant was signed in 1638 after Charles I tried to bring the Scottish church in line with the English by introducing the Book of Common Prayer in Scotland. Any opposition to the new doctrine was to be considered treason. In response, the Scottish Presbyterians gathered at Greyfriars Kirk on 28 February 1638 to sign the National Covenant. The Covenant stated that Jesus Christ was the head of their church and not the King.
Civil War had broken out in England and the Scottish Covenanters formed an alliance with Oliver Cromwell against King Charles I and the Royalists. When Charles I was executed, the Scots supported Charles II, since the new King had made promises of religious tolerance. However, Charles II ignored his promise to the Scots, outlawed Presbyterian services and tried to restore Episcopacy. Cromwell was outraged by the Scottish alliance with Charles II and invaded Scotland. Charles II went into exile until Cromwell died in 1658. Relief for the Scottish Presbyterians did not come until the Glorious Revolution with William of Orange in 1688.
During these years of Civil War, the covenanters were hunted, tortured and executed. It became known as the Killing Times. In twenty-seven years, about 18,000 people, who would not compromise their beliefs, were killed or executed. Ministers preached at ‘conventicles,’ secret open air meetings. If caught, they were executed. Those who were not executed would be imprisoned or could be banished to the colonies. Many more fled to Ireland and America for safety.
In Ireland, the Scottish Presbyterians who had previously settled in the North of Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster wanted to give support to the Covenanters. Some left Ulster and went to Scotland; such as, Rev Andrew McCormick and Rev John Crookshanks who were killed by the King’s troops at Rullion Green in 1666. Others gave shelter and support to those fleeing from Scotland. Alexander Peden was a leading covenanter who was captured and sentenced to exile in America. When the American ship captain, who was charged with taking Peden to America, learned of why he was being exiled, he helped Peden escape to Ireland. There he spent time in the hills of Glenwherry in County Antrim and continued to preach before returning to Scotland.
After the end of The Killing Times and the persecution of the covenanters, many of the Scottish planters and refugees in Ulster immigrated to America, to the ports of Philadelphia and Charlestown. There they became known as Scotch-Irish. Among the many famous Scotch-Irish ancestors in American history is Andrew ‘Stonewall’ Jackson. Jackson’s family was known to have been lowland Presbyterian Scots who settled in Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster. Then later the Jackson family immigrated to America. Andrew Jackson’s wife, Eleanor Junkin, is believed to have descended from Scottish Covenanters. Will you find the ancestors of your Scotch-Irish family in the records of the Scottish Covenanters?”
For more stories on tracing your Irish heritage from Findmypast click here.
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/ulster-and-the-scottish-killing-time#
Thank you Tim. It becomes clearer with each installment as we see how much the Lord has not only identified where to find the church, but how His guiding light of the Word helps us to identify exactly what He asks us to identify, false Christ. Based on scripture the greatest error a Christian could make is to ever give credence to a body that claims to be the church but isnt, and to ever be in communion with it. I look forward as this unfolds. K
Tim wrote:
“For more than a thousand years, Rome wore out the saints and complained of that intractable Woman, but could stop neither her work nor the inevitable reformation movements that sprang up whithersoever she went with the Word of Truth.
As for the Serpent, his Flood could never reach the Woman, and so he was left trying to convince her offspring—those many reformation movements—to return to the bosom and errors of Rome.”
The problem is with Tim’s timeline which calculates the start of the 1,260 year period with 358 as the beginning and 1618 as the ending.
When you look at the national covenant of Scotland which summarizes even better than Tim does this flood if false doctrine it is not started until 1638…20 years after Tim closes out the period of false doctrine that floods the Christian church and ends all Roman catholic persecution of the saints. The Killing Times had not even started!!!
“During the following months, the protest grew into a campaign of petitions and supplications denouncing the Laudian prayer book and criticising the power of the bishops. Led by the lords Loudoun, Rothes, Balmerino and Lindsay, the supplicants organised four elected “Tables” or committees to represent the nobility, gentry, burgesses and clergy, and a fifth Table to act as an executive body. The clergyman Alexander Henderson and the lawyer Archibald Johnston of Wariston were given the task of drawing up a National Covenant to unite the supplicants and to clarify their aims. Based upon the Confession of Faith signed by James VI in 1581, the Covenant called for adherence to doctrines already enshrined by Acts of Parliament and for a rejection of untried “innovations” in religion. Although it emphasised Scotland’s loyalty to the King, the Covenant also implied that any moves towards Roman Catholicism would not be tolerated.
In February 1638, at a ceremony in Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh, large numbers of Scottish noblemen, gentry, clergy and burgesses signed the Covenant, committing themselves under God to preserving the purity of the Kirk. Copies were distributed throughout Scotland for signing on a wave of popular support. Those who hesitated were often intimidated into signing and clergymen who opposed it were deposed. By the end of May 1638, the only areas of Scotland where the Covenant had not been widely accepted were the remote western highlands and the counties of Aberdeen and Banff, where resistance to it was led by the Royalist George Gordon, Marquis of Huntly.
The Covenanter movement became the dominant political and religious force in Scotland following the Glasgow Assembly of 1638. The clash between the King and the Covenanters culminated in the Bishops’ Wars of 1639 and 1640.
In 1643, during the English Civil War, the objectives of the Covenant were incorporated into the Solemn League and Covenant which secured a military alliance between the English Parliament and the Scottish Covenanters against the Royalists. This alliance was instrumental in bringing about the defeat of the King’s cause in the English Civil War.”
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/crisis-in-scotland/scottish-national-covenant
There was no apostasy in the later part of the 4th century. As I have shown, Rome had primacy long before the 4th century. Baptismal regeneration is Biblical. The assumption of Mary wasn’t dogmatically defined until 1950 so I am not sure why that is thrown in there in the 4th century. And, the creme-de-la-creme is Eucharistic adoration which didn’t occur until some 700 years after the “great flood” of the 4th century?!
What nonsense. I just have to be amused at all the different people who think they can interpret the book of Revelation. I have to also be amused at all those who lap it up like it is gospel truth.
Tim K., are you infallible? Do you have a phone line to God? Do you feel he has been revealing these “truths” to you or are you willing to admit that everything you write could just be pure bunk. When I read the Book of Revelation I see the Mass. I also see Mary, Queen of Heaven, prayers to Saints, judgment by our works, no rapture, no Catholic Church as the antichrist, etc.
Mark wrote to Tim:
“There was no apostasy in the later part of the 4th century. As I have shown, Rome had primacy long before the 4th century. Baptismal regeneration is Biblical. The assumption of Mary wasn’t dogmatically defined until 1950 so I am not sure why that is thrown in there in the 4th century. And, the creme-de-la-creme is Eucharistic adoration which didn’t occur until some 700 years after the “great flood” of the 4th century?!
What nonsense. I just have to be amused at all the different people who think they can interpret the book of Revelation. I have to also be amused at all those who lap it up like it is gospel truth.”
Tim wrote one of the best, if not the best, summaries on how the early Church Fathers not only resisted this EVIL antichrist that was surfacing out of Rome, but they were seemingly united in their testimony against this EVIL that certainly looked like the “falling away”.
For those are somehow (I don’t know how but…) influenced by Mark Rome making comments on this blog to somehow support the view that Rome is this great Catholic Church of the early Church Fathers and Apostles, just PLEASE read the detailed summary below. Please think for yourselves using the historical evidence. Don’t have blind faith in anything of God. Go to the source documents in Scripture and History. Don’t fear Rocky, Timothy P and Mark Rome to scare you into submission to Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church is soaked in the blood of the saints, and no institution even comes close…not even close. Don’t be deceived. Read below the series of events that led to the falling away!
Roman Catholics, PLEASE, leave this antichrist system NOW.
“Because there cannot be a “falling away” except from within, the mystery of iniquity was an internal phenomenon, already at work, trying “to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:22). Thus, although Albert Barnes could not identify the restraining power “which operated as a check on the growing corruptions then existing,” his summary of its effects appears to be an apt description of the Church when corrupting influences continue to manifest from within.
What was the Church to do when the inevitable happened, when internal errors became so pervasive that professing Christians everywhere were succumbing to error? The answer was obvious. Per Paul’s instructions, they were to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17). Soon, “all the world” would wonder after the Wicked one (Revelation 13:3), for the Devil “which deceiveth the whole world” had been cast down to earth (Revelation 12:9). But the Church would of necessity have to withdraw “from among them,” lest the true temple of God be profaned by the Wicked one’s arrogance, idolatry and error, and the world’s universal reception of it.
This idea of the Church withdrawing from the overwhelming propagation of error is suggested by Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. “He that [restraineth]” the Wicked one will not just be “taken out of the way” as is typically translated, but rather “taken out of the midst (μέσου).” Everyone else would fall into error, but the remnant Church would be protected from the “strong delusion” that enveloped the world (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The mystery of iniquity would arise from within the Church, as we noted, and Church would restrain that mystery of iniquity for the allotted time. But when the appointed time came, and the “falling away” manifested, the Church would be taken “out of the midst,” the time of her ministry of resistance completed, allowing the Wicked one finally to be manifested for who he truly was. Accordingly, in Revelation it is just when the serpent unleashes a flood in order to try to cause the Church “to be carried away,” and grants to the beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Revelation 13:3), that the Church is taken away to a place of safety (Revelation 12:13). Her removal was to coincide with the Beast’s rise, Satan’s flood of error, and the “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). Lest the elect, too, be carried away of the flood and join in the apostasy, the Woman was provided with wings to flee to her place of safety.
It was also at that time that “the earth helped the woman” and “opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood” (Revelation 12:16). The “earth” coming to the aid of God’s people to “swallow up” that which threatens them is the language of Moses, language he used to describe how God preserved His people from persecutors (Exodus 15:12-13), and protected them from apostates (Numbers 16:32, 26:10, Deuteronomy 11:6, Psalms 106:17), guiding them to safety on their flight from Egypt. John resurrects that language and applies it again when it is time for God’s people to flee from the great apostasy.
Thus, it was the Church that “withholdeth” and “now letteth,” and it was the Church that would be taken out of the way, so that the Man of Sin would be revealed.
Those who followed our series, The Visible Apostolicity of the Invisibly Shepherded Church, will recall that the Church served in just such a restraining capacity for the first three hundred years of the sub-apostolic era. The Bishop of Rome had repeatedly attempted to rise up to rule over his brethren, and he was repeatedly corrected. Not a few times was he subjected to the ridicule, indignation and astonishment of the surrounding churches. The apostolic churches had witnessed pride, arrogance, obstinacy, wickedness, madness, heresy, “contumacious discord,” presumptuousness, error and a conspicuously inflated sense of importance flow out of Rome for three hundred years, and for three hundred years, the Roman episcopate had been kept in check by the surrounding churches. The Bishop of Rome had on many occasions attempted to claim and assert primacy, and for three hundred years, peals of laughter echoed back at him from three continents. His claims were consistently rebuffed and dismissed as the ravings of an inflated ego with a propensity to think above its station. It was by this means that the church restrained the mystery of iniquity.
By way of a refresher, we will revisit some of the highlights of the first three hundred years of Roman ambition. We recall that the Shepherd of Hermas believed that it was Michael, not the Bishop of Rome, “who has authority over this people, and governs them” from heaven (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similtude 8, chapter 3). Likewise, Mathetes thought it was unconscionable for one man to seek the supremacy over his brethren:
“For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 10)
It simply did not occur to the early church to have a supreme bishop ruling over them, except from Heaven.
When “pope” Victor attempted to force all churches to obey his mandate on the date of Passover, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, told Victor that his opinions carried no weight outside of Rome. Here Polycrates responds with Petrine fortitude, explaining that the churches of Asia were unmoved by Victor’s impudent tone:
“I … have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’ [Acts 5:29]” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 24, paragraph 3).
For his presumptuous error, Victor earned a sharp rebuke from Irenæaus and other bishops on every side, even from those who agreed with his dating of Passover:
“But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus…” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 24, paragraphs 9-11)
Irenæaus went on to explain that there was no Scriptural mandate that any bishop could impose on the matter, and that various churches had “formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 24, paragraph13). They were to be left to themselves in the spirit of Romans 14:5, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Later, it was Tertullian who reported that the bishop of Rome had collaborated in importing heresy “into Rome from Asia,” and only under pressure did he ultimately rescind the letters he had written in support of it (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 1). When a certain Roman bishop claimed that the Church had the power to forgive sins, Tertullian mocked him for “subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord,” derogated him as a “Pontifex Maximus” for his presumption to issue an imperial decree, reminding him that the duty of the bishop was “presiding not imperially, but ministerially” (Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 21).
It is at this time that Origen derided the base carnality of the Jews for thinking to rule the nations from a chief earthly metropolis:
“[I]magining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt” and “that the natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers of their pleasures, … [and] that they are to receive the wealth of the nations to live on, and that they will have control over their riches;” (Origen, De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 11, paragraph 2)
To the contrary, Origen insisted, “those cities which are said to belong to the nation of Israel have the heavenly Jerusalem as their metropolis” (Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, chapter 22), not an earthly one. The idea of a chief earthly metropolis was repugnant to him.
Back in Rome we find Hippolytus quite animated in his criticism of the shamefully corrupt and conniving heretics occupying the bishopric there. The responsibility of the Roman Bishop to administer “the affairs of the Church” was only a figment of “pope” Zephyrinus’ uninformed imagination, and Hippolytus refused to align himself either with Zephyrinus or “pope” Callistus after him. Instead, Hipplytus complained that these two were constantly advancing heretical views, “but we have frequently … refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth,” only to find them repeatedly wallowing in “the same mire” again (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, chapter II).
Church historian, Eusebius, describes the administration of “pope” Zephyrinus as a period during which “the truth had been corrupted” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 28, paragraph 3). On this same account we find Irenæaus—already obliged to travel to Rome from Gaul to correct the Montanist heresy that was thriving under the blessing of “pope” Eleutherus—also reminding his audience that Polycarp, too, was moved to come to Rome from Smyrna to correct the heresies then prospering under “pope” Anicetus’ watchful eye (Irenæus,Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 4).
We find that Cyprian, too, knew very well that Peter had never “claim[ed] anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly … as to say that he held the primacy” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 70, paragraph 3). “Pope” Stephen, by way of contrast, was now channeling the spirit of Victor and Diotrephes, siding with heretics against believers:
“Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated?” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 8)
Here Cyprian points out “pope” Stephen’s “error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 1), and complaining that “pope” Stephen was “forgetful of unity,” and had adopted “lies” and “contagion” instead (paragraph 2). Further, “pope” Stephen had demonstrated “obstinacy” and “presumption” by preferring “human tradition to divine ordinance” (paragraph 3), and, what is more, his “blindness of soul” and “degradation of faith” had caused him “to refuse to recognize the unity” (paragraph 4). Things would not go well for Stephen on the day of judgment because he “does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church” (paragraph 8).
Writing “to his brother Pompeius” against “pope” Stephen, Cyprian insisted that it was Stephen who was now originating heresy and lacerating and laying waste Christ’s flock, and thus it was time for the rest of the churches to step up. Stephen’s haughty, unskilled, contradictory and erroneous encyclical (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, paragraph 1), required the rest of the bishops to pull rank on him and invoke their own Petrine authority to put him in his place. We note that Cyprian invokes “Peter himself” in his explanation of why it was necessary to separate from the bishop of Rome (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, paragraph 11).
To this, Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea, responded in full agreement, complaining that “they who are at Rome … vainly pretend the authority of the apostles.” Firmilian’s complaint highlights in particular “pope” Stephen’s “audacity and pride” and “the things that he has wickedly done,” and includes thanks to Cyprian because he had “settled this matter” of an upstart bishop thinking more highly of himself than he ought (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 74, From Firmilian, Against the Letter of Stephen, paragraphs 3 & 6).
But Firmilian was not even close to being finished as he excoriated the galactic failure of Stephen to conduct himself in a manner becoming of a bishop in Christ’s church. In his response to Cyprian, Stephen of Rome had called him a false Christ, a false apostle and a worker of deceit, and Firmilian had had the temerity to turn those appellations right back on “pope” Stephen himself:
“And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian ‘a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.’ And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 74, (from Firmilian), paragraph 27)
On account of this propensity for bishops, particularly the one residing in Rome, to interfere in each other’s territories, even as late as 380 A.D. at the council of Constantinople, the bishops were insisting that each man manage the affairs of his own diocese alone, and stop confusing the churches by their incessant meddling:
“Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: … Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea.” (Council of Constantinople, Canon 2)
Indeed, after centuries of pride, arrogance, overreach and error, the bishops of the world were frankly tired of the many of bishops in Rome who maintained heretics (as Eleutherus had), meddled in the affairs of other episcopates (as Victor had), and attempted to impose their will on their neighbors (as Stephen had).
For three hundred years the Roman episcopate had irritated the surrounding churches with her obstinacy and impudence, arrogance and pride, had propagated error, rashly excommunicated her brethren without cause, and was in frequent need of support, correction, instruction and rebuke, presuming to forgive sins and preside imperially from an earthly metropolis. For three hundred years, the alleged “primacy” of the Roman episcopate was unknown to the Early Church. Rather, it was an episcopate that had so polarized the body of Christ as to be a cause of factiousness, schism and error instead of a guardian of unity and peace between the brethren. In spite of, not because of, that episcopate, the rest of the churches managed to enjoy unity within the body. The early church saw any desire for a chief earthly metropolis to be more suited to the base carnality of the Jews than to the heavenly ambition of Christ’s church, and stood aghast at Rome’s persistent carnality and obstinacy. In short, for three centuries, the Church resisted that mystery of iniquity.
And then—seemingly out of nowhere—Rome finally got her wish. As Pope Damasus claimed at a council in 382 A.D., “the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision” (Council of Rome, III.1). It was, of course, a novelty of his own imagination. For three hundred years the Church had consistently restrained such lawlessness, and succeeded in keeping Rome at bay.”
That was a good summary above. (by Walt from one of Tim Kauffman’s articles) Where is the link to that original article?
I am sorry I have not had time to read more here; I come back every now and then and learn a lot. I just read through a lot of your interaction with Mark Rome and others at “the Other Woman” (wow; over 600 comments; I confess I eventually gave up trying to read every word, but skipped around)
It is amazing the amount of information here on church history, quotes, etc.
Tim,
1. Have you written an article or in an article on the famous statement of Irenaeus, that Roman Catholics use to back up their claims about Rome? (Against Heresies, 3:3:2)
Does it mean “every church must agree with the church at Rome” ? or does it mean “every church resorts to the church of Rome, because everyone travels to Rome, since it is the capital of the Empire, and so the apostolic doctrine is preserved there, since all the other churches and faithful Christians go to Rome, so that what the church at Rome reflects the true apostolic doctrine at that time”?
I have an article on it here:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/irenaeus-and-the-church-at-rome-in-his-day/
What do you think?
2. Also, in that excellent summary that Walt gave above, I would add that Cyprian and 86 other bishops said about Stephen, bishop of Rome, around 258 AD:
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, . . . ” meaning –
“no one should claim to be bishop over all other bishops”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Ken,
Walt’s source was a series of articles called The Visible Apostolicity of the Invisibly Shepherded Church, available here. I addressed Irenæus’ quote from Against Heresies Book 3.3.2 in part 5. In addition to the problem with the lost Greek original and the poor English translation of a barbaric Latin translation, is the fact that there’s not a person alive at the time who would have believed the implications of the translation—most especially not Irenæus.
As we know from Eusebius, the bishops of the world strongly rebuked “pope” Victor for excommunicating the Asian Churches regarding the tyrannical imposition of a date for the paschal fast, and among those strongly rebuking Victor was Irenæus himself who insisted to Victor that “the [Asian] disagreement [with the church at Rome!] in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.” Now if the “agreement in the faith” is confirmed by disagreeing with Rome, then Irenæus could not possibly mean what Rome alleges from Book 3, Chapter 2, paragraph 2. By way of precedent, Irenæus in the same letter had gone on to illustrate the suitability of disagreeing with Rome by highlighting the fact that Polycarp before him had come to Rome and disagreed with “pope” Anicetus about a similar matter. And despite the disagreement in which Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp “to observe what he had always observed” and neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus, “pope” Anicetus nevertheless deferred to Polycarp in the celebration of the Eucharist—again showing that disagreeing with Rome can actually confirm the unity of the faith (Church History Book V, chapter 24).
The history of Irenæus coming to Rome to correct error there, as well as his stern rebuke of “pope” Victor, and his own words speaking approvingly of other bishops (like Polycarp) confirming the faith by maintaining unity even while disagreeing with “pope” Anicetus, shows that the English translation—”For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church”—is so inconsistent with its ostensible author as to be laughable on its face. How can a man who disagreed with Rome and approved of others who did the same, be alleged to insist that everyone must agree with Rome?
In any case, I saw in your article that you provided an alternate reading “resort” which is in fact more consistent with history and with Irenæus than the typical rendering of the passage. As I note in my article on this issue, even the Roman Catholic historian acknowledges in his translation of the passage that Apostolic truth was preserved not by Rome, but “by those who are on every side” of her—so often (as we have shown) was she in need of aid, rebuke and correction.
Thanks again for your note,
Tim
Thanks Tim!
Great! I was hoping somewhere in these articles you had commented on the Irenaeus passage.
Enjoying reading more and more of your material.
Ken Temple
So, it seems, according to this article, that Damasus is really the first “Pope”. Usually people say either Leo 1 (440 AD) or Gregory (590-604 AD) is the first Pope. But didn’t Gregory the Great rebuke John of Constantinople for claiming to be “Universal bishop” ?
Roman Catholic material is very anachronistic to call any of the bishops of Rome before Damasus or Leo 1 “Pope”.
Instead, the books and articles should read, “bishop of Rome”, rather than “Pope” of all before Damasus in 382 AD.
Mark, you wrote,
So you say. And yet it is your writers who repeatedly claim that so many of your “apostolic” doctrines emerge with sudden clarity and precision toward the end of the 4th century. I’m simply aggregating the emergence into a singular phenomenon. I think in their aggregation they constitute the falling away of Paul’s prophesies. You have a different opinion. Not sure where we go from here.
I did not know you had shown this. I have seen no evidence of Roman primacy prior to the latter part of the 4th century.
So you say. And yet so many early church fathers did not agree with you.
Ok, “dogma” is the wrong word, and I cheerfully withdraw it. “Belief” is the word I was looking for. The Catholic encyclopedia claims that the belief originated in the 4th or 5th centuries: “The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.” (Catholic Encylcopedia, The Feast of the Assumption) Isn’t it funny how your beliefs just kind of pop up around the same time, toward the end of the 4th century? I personally have seen no credible evidence that the Assumption belief originated in the 4th century—more likely the early 5th. If you read my article, I did not actually place it in the 4th century, so it is not “thrown in there in the 4th century.”
You continued,
Yes, actually. Beliefs like the assumption and the practice of Eucharistic Adoration are derivative of beliefs that originated toward the end of the 4th century—Mary’s sinlessness and the sacrifice of the mass—paving the way for the apparitions of Mary to appear and start getting people to worship the Eucharist toward the end of the 11th century. Revelation 13 describes that very phenomenon when it says the False Prophet convinced people by its miracles to “that they should make an image to the beast” (Revelation 13:14-17). The apparition of Mary is the False Prophet, the Eucharist is the image, and the eucharistic Miracles give life to the image, and cause it to speak, and Eucharistic adoration is the the result. And those who refused to adore it were cut off financially and others were put to death. It’s not like there’s merely an abstract fulfillment that his hard to understand, Mark. Eucharistic Adoration took off in Europe When “Mary” Got Busy, as “she” did in “her” many apparitions. There is a clear correlation between the eucharistic adoration phenomenon and the increase in activities of the Apparitions of Mary.
You continued,
Well, I’ve never denied that this blog is ridiculous and self-discrediting by its content alone. What is ironic about your comment is that immediately after making it, you interpret Revelation for us. Does this mean that you alone have the gift of insight into the Apocalypse? What’s your secret?
I don’t think anyone here is lapping it up as gospel truth.
That’s an interesting question. Are you willing to admit that your interpretation of my article “could just be pure bunk” and that my article might actually be exactly right? Or are you claiming that your interpretation of my article is infallible? Are you willing to admit that your interpretation of Revelation “could just be pure bunk” and that Revelation might mean something different than you have surmised? Or are you claiming that your interpretation is infallible?
Anyway, for the record, I have no phone line to God and no personal revelation from Him. If it is any comfort to you, I have not imposed my articles on anyone as compulsory, and have no plans to torture or burn anyone alive for rejecting them. As I have said elsewhere, this blog is largely inconsequential.
Tim
Tim wrote:
“And then—seemingly out of nowhere—Rome finally got her wish. As Pope Damasus claimed at a council in 382 A.D., “the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision” (Council of Rome, III.1). It was, of course, a novelty of his own imagination. For three hundred years the Church had consistently restrained such lawlessness, and succeeded in keeping Rome at bay.
It is at this time in history that we see the Empire of Rome finally divided into thirteen dioceses, Roman Catholicism claiming three of them as her own (Italy, Egypt and Oriens), subduing three metropoli in the process (Milan, Alexandria and Antioch), and rising up to rule over the remaining ten, as we showed in The Fourteenth Diocese. It is also during this period that we see Roman Catholic errors rising and spreading throughout the world like a flood, as we showed in The Rise of Roman Catholicism and Longing for Nicæa. At the very same time, we see the remnant “taken out of the midst” of the rising apostasy and removed to her place of safety in the wilderness, protected there “from the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14). It is the Church that resisted the mystery of iniquity, and when the great apostasy finally came and Roman Catholicism arose to rule the known world, the true Church was taken out of the midst and removed to her place of refuge, just as John and Paul had prophesied.
We will continue on this theme in following posts, but we will conclude this week with Albert Barnes’ uncannily accurate description of a phenomenon of iniquity that “doth already work,” and the restraining power that held it back. Barnes could not pinpoint the specific iniquity, and could only guess as to its substance. About that “mystery of iniquity,” he wrote,
“Any secret sources of iniquity in the church—anything that tended to corrupt its doctrines, and to destroy the simplicity of the faith of the gospel, would correspond with the meaning of the word. … In his own time, [Paul] says, there were things which, if not restrained, would expand and ripen into that apostasy.”
As to that restraining power, Barnes could not identify it, but could only surmise the benefits of it resistive force and the calamitous effects of its removal. He continued,
“[B]ut what that [power] was, is not quite certain. It was some power which operated as a check on the growing corruptions then existing, and which prevented their full development, but which was to be removed at no distant period, and whose removal would give an opportunity for these corruptions to develop themselves, and for the full revelation of the man of sin.” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, 2 Thessalonians 2:7)
There is hardly a better description of the Church in this role and in this period than what Barnes has written: The church was that “power which operated as a check on the growing corruptions then existing, and which prevented their full development, but which was to be removed at no distant period.” The true Church was removed to her place of safety, leaving Antichrist Roman Catholicism to rule the known world, a diabolical imposter claiming to be the very Church of God.
But if the true Church “was to be removed at no distant period” so that the Man of Sin could be revealed, where did the Church go? Where was her place of refuge? Where was the Bride of Christ all those 1,260 years that Roman Catholicism ruled arrogantly from Rome, falsely claiming to be the Church?
Very good questions, indeed”
I think I made a mistake when I started his date at 358 rather than 382. For some reason 358 stuck in my mind, but I think I made a mistake. I’ll let Tim clarify if his starting date is 382 ending in the year 1642.
Thus period was the height of the second reformation between scotland, England and Ireland. Tim mentions “high water” or “he’ll” in his title above. This was the period of the “high water mark” in the second reformation.
See here:
http://reformationhistory.org/secondreformation.html
Dear Christian friends,
Today the sermon was just incredible as it got into details on the authority of Christ, and who is the antichrist of Scripture and history. It was just an incredible sermon for those looking for the preaching of another Historicist who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is antichrist, and the Papacy is the man of sin as proven by Scripture and history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIPXS3X2AcA
The sermon starts at 49:25 on YouTube.
Warning. There is defined in the Sermon the 3 ways to know you have assurance of salvation, and it has nothing to do with how much money you paid the Roman Catholic Churches, neither how much you gave in payment for indulgences, nor how many good deeds you have done on earth, etc.
Second Warning. It is clear that the kingdom of God and kingdom of Heaven are both here on earth in our generation. While the kingdom of Heaven originates in heaven most certainly, the kingdom of God on earth is broken into the kingdom of grace (the church) and kingdom of power (the magistrate)…both under the sovereign authority of Jesus Christ who rules and reigns on earth as in heaven. This will upset those who believe only Satan rules the earth, and God rules only in heaven with no authority over the magistrate.
What do the Catholics believe after Vatican II? See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUhAFrkSOiE
“As Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, author of the book, “The Kingdom of the Cults,” & the original “Bible Answer Man” said so well in his journal article, “Charismatics & The Cult of Mary,” Roman Catholic historical theology has created “Seven Steps to Deity” for the Virgin Mary. Walter lists these steps: 1. calling Mary the “Mother of God,” 2. creating the dogma of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” 3. inventing Mary’s “perpetual virginity,” 4. fabricating Mary into the “co-redemptrix” with Christ, 5. contriving a doctrine where Mary is the “Mediatrix of all Graces,” 6. devising Mary’s “Assumption into Heaven,” & 7. based on all of the previous heresies, imagining that Mary must be the “Queen of Heaven.” Roman Catholic theolgians easily ignore what God says in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the Lord: that is My name: and My Glory will I not give to another, neither My Praise to graven images.” See our YOUTUBE video, “ORIGINAL “BIBLE ANSWER MAN” WALTER MARTIN SAYS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS CORRUPT & APOSTATE
.”
Apparitions of Mary typically arrive with extensive messages for
popes and pilgrims alike. The Marian Apparition at Paris in
1830 gave Roman Catholics the devotion and design of
the popular “Miraculous Medal.” The Marian Apparition at
La Salette in 1846 gave explicit, and sometimes secret,
messages to the children, some of which were addressed
to and sent directly to the pope. The Marian Apparition at
Fátima in 1917 had months of meetings with visionary
Lucia Abóbora, coupled with public and private messages
for the pope, culminating in a dramatic display of light. The
(officially unapproved) Marian Apparitions at Medjugorje
since the 1980s have provided more than 30,000
messages, so many that they have since been compiled
concordance-style into a tome called Words from Heaven,
along with more secrets for the visionaries and for John
Paul II. In these and many, many more occurrences of
Apparitions, the visionaries have been encouraged to write
down the messages (or images) and pass them on to others.
On March 25, 1984, John Paul II performed the consecration as the Apparition had instructed, making no
secret of the fact that he was “responding to what Our Lady
had requested at Fatima.” Likewise, the Marian Apparition at La Salette sent secret messages to Pius IX in 1846. Twenty-four years later, just five months before the first Vatican Council would proclaim the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Pius IX received visionary Don Bosco in a private audience. Bosco had received certain “revelations” from an Apparition about the advancement of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility & needed desperately to relate the vision to the pope. The Apparition had provided directions for Pius IX to proceed with the doctrine even if he had only two bishops supporting him. On July 18, 1870, the Vatican Council proceeded with the vote and Pius IX accomplished his desired infallibility, showing that the Apparitions were intimately involved in the formalization of the infallibility doctrine, as well. See our YOUTUBE video, “APPARITIONS OF MARY: IS THE VIRGIN MARY THE FOURTH PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC “TRINITY”?”
This ministry has almost 50 hours of videos just on the subject of Roman Catholicism (type “LARRY WESSELS ROMAN CATHOLICISM” in the YOUTUBE search box & an array of videos will appear).”
Has anyone heard that Pope Francis has declared recently that Priests have the ability to forgive sins of abortion now in the Roman Catholic Church? I’ve seen this recently, and wondered if Mark Rome could explain what Pope Francis is saying?
Tim, I hope this research does not offend anyone as I know how sensitive some are here about the reformers and their views on Christmas. However, it is good to learn the biblical holy days vs. the Roman Catholic holydays.
“The regulative principle of worship has clear implications for those who want to promote the celebration of Christmas. The Regulative Principle forces those who celebrate Christmas to prove from Scripture that God has authorized the celebrating of such a day. This, in fact, is impossible.” – From the free online book The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley
“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. ” (Jer. 10:2-4).
“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.” – From: The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley
“The word for Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ … Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday … The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont’s epoch-making “Textes et Monuments” etc. … Though Rome gives three Masses to the Nativity only, Ildefonsus, a Spanish bishop, in 845, alludes to a triple mass on Nativity, Easter, Whitsun, and Transfiguration (P.L., CVI, 888).” – From The Catholic Encyclopedia.
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)
“Christmas was accurately depicted (by the Puritans – ed.) by such names as the Profane Man’s Ranting Day, the Superstitious Man’s Idol Day, the Papist’s Massing Day, the Old Heathen’s Feasting Day, the Multitude’s Idle Day, and Satan – that Adversary’s – Working Day.” – X-Mas: The Biggest Pagan Holiday/Holyday of the Year by Dr. Scott Johnson
“1. In the pure Apostolical times there was no Christ-mass day observed in the Church of God. We ought to keep to the primitive Pattern. That Book of Scripture which is called, The Acts of the Apostles, saith nothing of their keeping Christ’s Nativity as an Holy-day. The [Cent. 2.] Centuriators, and many others take notice that in the first Ages of the New-Testament Church, there were no stated Anniversary Holy-days among Christians. Easter was kept a long time before the Feast of the Nativity, and yet the Apostles never ordained that, as [Lib. 5. c. cap. 22.] Socrates (the most excellent of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Historians) does truly observe. Had there been the least hint of any such day observed in the primitive times, learned Vossius would have told the world of it. One [Voetius in Disput. de Nativ. Christi. p. 22.] saith of him, Si pergama dextra defendi possunt etiam hac defensa fuissent. But he acknowledges that the Feast of Christ’s Nativity was not kept in the first nor yet in the second Century. After Prelatical writers have said all they can say, Chemnitius [Contra Conc. Trial. part. 4 de Festis. p. 262.] his words will be found true. Anniversarium diem Natalis Christi celebratum fuisse, apud vetustissimos nunquam legitur. The most Ancient writers speak not the least word concerning the celebration of Christ’s Birth-day.
2. The word Christ-mass is enough to cause such as are studious of reformation to dislike what shall be known by a name so superstitious. Why should Protestants own any thing which has the name of Mass in it? How unsuitable is it to join Christ and Mass together? i.e., Christ and Antichrist. But what Communion has light with Darkness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6:15. Some of the Jesuits [So the Rhemists.] have advised that endeavours should be used to keep up their old terms and names, such as Priest, Altar, Christ-mass, Candlemass, and the like, hoping that by means thereof in time the things would follow the Names whereby their memory is preserved.” – Increase Mather’s Testimony Against that Prophane and Superstitious Custom of Christ-mass Keeping.
“And next in particular, concerning festival days findeth that in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline it was thought good that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, with the feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs, and Virgin Mary be utterly abolished because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture and that such as observe them be punished by Civil Magistrates. Here utter abolition is craved and not reformation of abuses only and that because the observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word of God.” – The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, December 10, Session 17, 1638, pp. 37-38
George Gillespie, one of the Scottish Commissioners at the Westminster Assembly, in his classic defense of Reformed worship, A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies (on the Puritan Hard Drive), waxes eloquent on this matter, including festival days among those “ceremonies that are unlawful, because they sort us with idolaters.” He writes,
“by communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:10, was an idolater, eo ipso, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolaters. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days (like the Christ-Mass [Christmas] – ed.), bishopping, bowing down to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, etc., are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ’s enemies, and the very trophies of antichrist, — we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord’s redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the temple of God like the synagogue of Satan?”
“All human inventions (like the Christ Mass [Christmas] – ed,) which are set up to corrupt the simple purity of the Word of God, and to undo the worship which he demands and approves, are true sacrileges, in which the Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God, and trampling his honour underfoot.” – John Calvin
“The Romish Church, in opposition to the word of God, has a great multiplicity of annually returning sacred seasons. The 25th day of December is one of those seasons; at which time, originally, a heathen festival was held. ‘This day was next baptized into a Romish mass for the birth of Christ.’ The truth is, the day of Christ’s nativity has been irrecoverably lost. Had this date been designed for special religious veneration, its date would have been preserved in the Holy Record, and a divine command given for its proper observance. The absence both of the date and command, makes it as clear to us as a sunbeam, that the natal day of our Saviour, even were it known, should not be honored by any religious observance whatsoever.” – “Christmas,” from The Associate Presbyterian Magazine, February, 1879.
“Christmas. This is the name of the day on which is wont to be celebrated the idolatrous Romish sacrifice of the mass, in honor of the birth of Christ. As nearly as can be now ascertained, the day was first set apart for this purpose by the authority of the bishop at Rome, toward the close of the fourth century, or early in the fifth. … We do not acknowledge the authority of its appointment. If the religious observance of Christmas was divinely enjoined upon us, or if we had evidence in the writings of the apostles, that they observed it, or that they taught the churches which they established to do so, then we should feel ourselves obliged to observe the day. But as Protestants, we long ago abjured the authority of the Pope of Rome, and we still utterly repudiate his right to legislate for us, either over our consciences or our conduct. It was an essential principle of the Reformation, which we hold to have been sound, and the only principle which could have been safe, to reject every thing which appeared manifestly to be of human contrivance, and thus to carry the church back, both in its doctrines and its practices, to the incorrupt simplicity of the apostolic times.” – “Christmas,” from The Reformed Presbyterian magazine, January, 1851.
“The Protestant Reformation was a conflict over many critical issues. Of all the issues contested between Romanists and Reformers, no issue was more crucial than the question of true worship. John Knox displayed a preeminent concern for worship. Throughout his ministry, the Reformer proclaimed the scriptural law of worship: all forms of worship (and all religious ceremonies) must possess clear scriptural warrant, if they are to be admitted as valid means of worship. This concept has subsequently been called the regulative principle of worship, because it regulates our approach to God in worship.” – Kevin Reed, Introductory Essay to John Knox’s True and False Worship
“The matter is not of so small importance, as some suppose. The question is, whether God or man ought to be obeyed in matters of religion? In mouth, all do confess that only God is worthy of sovereignty. But after many — by the instigation of the devil, and by the presumptuous arrogance of carnal wisdom and worldly policy — have defaced God’s holy ordinance, men fear not to follow what laws and common consent (mother of all mischief) have established and commanded. But thus continually I can do nothing but hold, and affirm all things polluted, yea, execrable and accursed, which God by his Word has not sanctified in his religion. God grant you his Holy Spirit rightly to judge.” – John Knox, Works VI:14 cited in John Knox, True and False Worship
The redeemed Ebenezer Scrooge:
“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year!”
The unredeemed Ebenezer Scrooge (in coversation with his nephew):
“Come, then,” returned the nephew gaily. “What right have you to be dismal? What reason have you to be morose? You’re rich enough.”
Scrooge having no better answer ready on the spur of the moment, said “Bah!” again; and followed it up with “Humbug.”
“Don’t be cross, uncle!” said the nephew.
“What else can I be,” returned the uncle, “when I live in such a world of fools as this? Merry Christmas! Out upon merry Christmas! What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books and having every item in ’em through a round dozen of months presented dead against you? If I could work my will,” said Scrooge indignantly, “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!”
“Uncle!” pleaded the nephew.
“Nephew!” returned the uncle sternly, “keep Christmas in your own way, and let me keep it in mine.”
“Keep it!” repeated Scrooge’s nephew. “But you don’t keep it.”
“Let me leave it alone, then,” said Scrooge. “Much good may it do you! Much good it has ever done you!”
“There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say,” returned the nephew. “Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round — apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that — as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!”
The secular “Christian” world calls all religions together to honor the “Christ child” on his “birthday” and promote global unity under the Roman holy day and her antitrust. Santa is so jolly and giving love to all boys and girls for those who cannot yet worship our baby Jesus they argue. It is all in good fun for goodness sake…don’t be a Scrooge they say!!!
These “Christians” in name hold hands with dear Mother Rome and proclaim:
“— apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that — as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!”
Then comes the true reformed broken hearted Christian weeping and crying unto the one true, holy God revealed in the scriptures asking why the whole world follows after the beast and none but a small invisible remnant seem to care. The Lord responds to the poor begger, my dear son, remember what I told you in my inspired, holy, infallible word:
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.”
And always remember my dear suffering servant of Jesus Christ that I told you:
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” ( 1John2:3-6;15-21)
And if my beloved word is not enough my son, then remember my principle as taught by my elect in history who would rather die for the love of the brethren and for Christ:
“The regulative principle of worship has clear implications for those who want to promote the celebration of Christmas. The Regulative Principle forces those who celebrate Christmas to prove from Scripture that God has authorized the celebrating of such a day. This, in fact, is impossible.” – From the free online book The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley
And if that is not sufficient to learn biblical principles my dear son, remember this truth when you must stand alone against the world and those who follow after its evil:
“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. ” (Jer. 10:2-4).
C.H. Spurgeon, in the Treasury of David, on Psalm 81:4, wrote,
“When it can be proved that the observance of Christmas, Whitsuntide, and other Popish festivals was ever instituted by a divine statute, we also will attend to them, but not till then. It is as much our duty to reject the traditions of men, as to observe the ordinances of the Lord. We ask concerning every rite and rubric, ‘Is this a law of the God of Jacob?'”
“Common objections against the classic Reformed position are also answered.
For more information see, Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins and Opposition to It, by Kevin Reed (free online book).”
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/Xmas_ch2.htm
“John Knox and the
Scottish Reformation
From the outset of the Scottish Reformation, the discussion focussed upon the nature of true worship. John Knox repeatedly confronted his papal adversaries by contending that true worship must be instituted by God. True worship is not derived from the innovations of men.
At the heart of Knox’s argument is an appeal to Deuteronomy 4 and 12. These portions of scripture teach that it is unlawful to add to, or subtract from, the worship which God has instituted in his Word. Consequently, all religious ceremonies and institutions must have direct scriptural warrant if they are to be admitted as valid expressions of worship. This statement of the regulative principle of worship was a hallmark of the Scottish reformation.
Knox made his case for the regulative principle at the beginning of his ministry, before he had studied on the Continent. Knox condemned the false worship of Roman Catholicism. In a public debate against the Papists, Knox declared:
That God’s word damns your ceremonies, it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, “Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes, shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee, that do thou: add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.” Now unless that ye are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them.[17]
With this understanding of worship, the Scottish Church cast out a multitude of the monuments of idolatry which were part of papal worship; graven images, the Mass, false sacraments, Romish liturgical ceremonies, and Roman bishops were all removed from the Church. Ecclesiastical holidays were also expelled from the Church of Scotland.
In 1560, Knox and several others drew up the First Book of Discipline. In this book, the First Head of Doctrine begins with a general statement on the nature of the gospel.[18]
After the opening statement, an “explication” is given which asserts the sole authority of scripture as it relates to doctrine and worship. Note the firm condemnation of holidays, as incorporated in this remarkable document:
Lest upon this our generality ungodly men take occasion to cavil, this we add for explication. By preaching of the Evangel, we understand not only the Scriptures of the New Testament, but also of the Old; to wit, the Law, Prophets, and Histories, in which Christ Jesus is no less contained in figure, than we have him now expressed in verity. And, therefore, with the Apostle, we affirm that “all Scripture inspired of God is profitable to instruct, to reprove, and to exhort.” In which Books of Old and New Testaments we affirm that all things necessary for the instruction of the Kirk, and to make the man of God perfect, are contained and sufficiently expressed.
By contrary Doctrine, we understand whatsoever men, by Laws, Councils, or Constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed commandment of God’s word: such as be vows of chastity, foreswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several and disguised apparels, to the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat for conscience sake, prayer for the dead; and keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded by men, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the Feasts (as they term them) of Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond feasts of our Lady. Which things, because in God’s scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realm; affirming further, that the obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought not to escape the punishment of the Civil Magistrate.[19]
The position of the Scottish Church was reaffirmed in 1566. Theodore Beza wrote to Knox, requesting Scottish approval for the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). The General Assembly in Scotland replied with a letter of general approval. Nevertheless, the Assembly could scarcely refrain from mentioning, with regard to what is written in the 24th chapter of the aforesaid Confession concerning the “festival of our Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending the Holy Ghost upon his disciples,” that these festivals at the present time obtain no place among us; for we dare not religiously celebrate any other feast-day than what the divine oracles prescribed.[20]”
“A fantastic series refuting ‘Protestants’ on the road to Rome! The first sermon in this important series exposes how some modern Protestants are leading people astray from biblical (Reformation) teaching on worship and holy days — and right into the arms of Papal Antichrist! Schwertley mentions and/or convincingly refutes errors by James Jordan, Horne, Meyers, Strawbridge, Steve Schlissel, R.J. Gore, John Frame, Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, and Norman Shepherd. Sadly, though a number of these men first headed toward Rome regarding worship they are now even polluting the doctrine of justification by faith alone, in a further step toward adopting Romish heresies. First they rejected sound teaching related to the second commandment (worship) and now are further apostatizing by promoting errors in opposition to the first commandment (on justification by faith alone). This message is must listening for everyone who who seeks to follow the Lord, as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, in all things. Remember that the Lord Jesus Christ said in John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” and in Matthew 15:9, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” — then ask yourself, “Where in Scripture is Christ-mass keeping commanded by God”?”
It is now after 5:30am here this morning and I can hear the Muslim call to prayers echoing throughout the city. If only the modern Christians had such discipline as did the reformers. Up early to a life of prayer, fasting and holiness. Like Daniel praying 3-5 five times a day.
Tim, you wrote and I corrected myself so would like your confirmation on your start date of the 1260 year period. Also, have you written any articles on what you believe immediately and shortly after takes place after the 1260 year period?
“There is hardly a better description of the Church in this role and in this period than what Barnes has written: The church was that “power which operated as a check on the growing corruptions then existing, and which prevented their full development, but which was to be removed at no distant period.” The true Church was removed to her place of safety, leaving Antichrist Roman Catholicism to rule the known world, a diabolical imposter claiming to be the very Church of God.
But if the true Church “was to be removed at no distant period” so that the Man of Sin could be revealed, where did the Church go? Where was her place of refuge? Where was the Bride of Christ all those 1,260 years that Roman Catholicism ruled arrogantly from Rome, falsely claiming to be the Church?
Very good questions, indeed”
I think I made a mistake when I started his date at 358 rather than 382. For some reason 358 stuck in my mind, but I think I made a mistake. I’ll let Tim clarify if his starting date is 382 ending in the year 1642.
Thus period was the height of the second reformation between scotland, England and Ireland. Tim mentions “high water” or “he’ll” in his title above. This was the period of the “high water mark” in the second reformation.
See here:
http://reformationhistory.org/secondreformation.html