Follow
We continue now with our series on Revelation 12, a chapter that is an Exodus narrative in which the Woman is shown fleeing from the error of that proceeds from the mouth of the devil and seeking her place of safety in the wilderness. As we have noted in this series, the Woman of Revelation 12 must have taken her leave sometime between the end of the Diocletianic persecution (313 A.D.) and the rise of Roman Catholicism to the seat of civil power among the fragments of the Roman Empire in the last decade of the 4th century.
In this series we have identified the flood of Revelation 12—the error of Roman Catholicism—as it began to spread across the civilized world in the latter part of the 4th century, as well as the noble resistance to the flood by the saints of God who consistently raised objections against the oppressive hierarchy of Roman Catholicism, clerical celibacy, the continuation of the Passover sacrifice under elements of the Lord’s Supper, prayers for the dead, intercession of the saints, the magnification of Mary, the veneration of human remains in the form of relics, veneration of the wood of the cross, baptismal regeneration and Roman primacy. These errors comprised the Flood of Revelation 12—a flood that church historians of all stripes have often mistaken for the teachings of the Church of Christ. The godly resistance to the errors comprised the Woman of Revelation 12—the resistance which church historians of all stripes have often mistaken for heretics.
In reality, many of the late 4th century and medieval “heretics” condemned by Roman Catholicism and church historians alike are actually a continuation of the early church—those who refused the novel errors of Rome and stood firmly on the Scriptures. Likewise, the late 4th century novelties often purveyed as Christianity are actually the “falling away” of 2 Thessalonians 2:3, resulting from the “strong delusion” of 2 Thessalonians 2:11. To that end, we find William Burgh’s 1839 assessment of the Paulicians to be a suitable follow up to our previous entry on their rejection of Roman error:
“Our knowledge of them is chiefly derived from their persecutors, and we must therefore expect to find them charged with all kinds of heresy and crime. But even amidst these calumnies the main characteristics of a true faith may be seen. They opposed themselves to all the leading points of the superstition and apostacy then rising into power. The worship of the Virgin had taken the place of the worship of God. But the Paulicians, we are told, ‘treated contemptuously the Virgin Mary.’ Relics, especially fragments of the cross, &c, were becoming objects of adoration. ‘They loaded the cross of Christ with contempt.’ The Lord’s Supper began to be turned into a propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of the sins of men. ‘They disparaged the nature and institution of the Lord’s Supper.’ The images of saints shared in the worship awarded to the Virgin, and to the wood of the cross, ‘They held the images of the saints in no reverence.’
“In short, making the necessary allowance for the distortions and calumnies of their enemies, we discern in these early opposers of the papal apostacy, exactly those features which might reasonably have been anticipated.”(Burgh, William, An Exposition on the Book of Revelation, (1839), Churchman’s Monthly Review, January 1842, pp. Seeley & Burnside, London) pp. 781 – 800)
The reason such an organic opposition movement “might reasonably have been anticipated,” as Burgh says, is that the Scriptures plainly informed us of the looming apostasy and the preservation of the Woman. The great falling away would not be universal. There must always be a remnant (Romans 9:27), and there was. The Paulician phenomenon was just one part of that remnant, and there were many more as we have highlighted in this series.
As we proceed it will be worth the time to pause briefly to examine why the Woman has been so long overlooked in the annals of church history, and her members so swiftly condemned, even by their own Protestant progeny. There are two primary reasons:
- Christian historians generally accept the Roman Catholic version of Church history well beyond 400 A.D., and therefore do not recognize that what is typically assumed to be the late antique and early medieval “church” was actually the prophesied apostasy.
- Christian historians, typically, are not sufficiently familiar with the wiles of Roman Catholic apologists and polemicists, and therefore cannot extract the truth from the tangled misrepresentations, often taking Rome’s analysis at face value, condemning as heretics those whom Jesus loved.
Accepting the Roman Version of History
Regarding item 1—the tendency of Protestants to accept the Roman version of history—we recall that E. B. Elliott, in his Horæ Apocalypticæ, understood the Woman of Revelation 12 and her position in “the heavens” to signify a “political elevation … to recognition as a body politic,” and the political influence the Church gained by being seated in the city of Rome, reaching its apex when Damasus was recognized as the head of the church (Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol 3, 2nd ed., Chapter 1, Apocalypse 12:1-12 (London: Seeley, Burnside & Seeley (1846) 10-12). In Elliott’s view, the conflict between the Woman and the Dragon is therefore reduced to the nascent Roman State Church (the Woman) tussling with Pagan Rome (the Dragon) for control over the Roman Empire (Elliott, 15). The Woman’s success in that battle is attributed to Theodosius “applying the two wings of the great eagle” to the Church so that “Roman Christendom” could rise to power and establish “the orthodox and true faith” of Pope Damasus (Elliott, 45).
A more inappropriate interpretation of the figures of Revelation 12 we can scarcely imagine. Here Elliott identified the lovely Woman with the Harlot as if the heavenly ambition of the Bride of Christ was to find herself seated in an elevated position of political power in Rome where she might “coerce the heathens of the empire” more effectively than Pagan Rome had coerced the Christians (Elliott, 12). By focusing on the ascent of the church to political power and legitimizing Damasus’ bloody rise, the protests of Jovinianus, Ærius, Vigiliantius and the rest are thereby marginalized in the history books. Thus, the judgment of Antichrist upon the actual Woman of Revelation 12 is thereby confirmed by Her own offspring.
Phillip Schaff, too (though not in terms so baldly offensive as Elliott’s) stumbled into this error as well, insisting as a matter of course that Protestants are constrained by the historical record to trace their apostolic lineage through the apostate Roman State Church. We have often appreciated Schaff’s historical works, especially his series on the Ante-Nicæan, Nicæan and Post-Nicæan Fathers. But when faced with the choice between the Paulicians and the Roman historians who calumniated them mercilessly, Schaff took the side of Rome and joined her in condemning the Paulicians. The Church is thus required, on Schaff’s high authority, to trace her lineage through the great apostasy of the Roman Antichrist, lest the Church’s apostolic “continuity” be lost:
“These sects have often been falsely represented as forerunners of Protestantism; they are so only in a purely negative sense, while in their positive opinions they differ as widely from the evangelical as from the Greek and Roman creed. The Reformation came out of the bosom of Mediaeval Catholicism, retained its oecumenical doctrines, and kept up the historic continuity.” Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Chapter XII, § 131. The Paulicians., (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
And that is the fundamental problem with the bulk of Christian historiography. We have especially highlighted Schaff’s claim of Roman doctrinal and historical continuity to show how the presumption of apostolic continuity is granted to Rome based solely on Rome’s own fraudulent claims of apostolic continuity. Yet, as we have demonstrated repeatedly (i.e., Longing for Nicæa, and The Object of Her Irrepressible Scorn), and as her own scholars flatly acknowledge, apostolic continuity is the very thing Roman Catholicism cannot possibly prove. It was not Pope Damasus, Pope Siricius, Ambrose and Jerome, but rather Jovinianus, Ærius, Vigilantus, Sarmatio and Barbatianus, and the Paulicians who maintained apostolic and historical continuity with the early church and the apostles. Rome’s own scholars know this to be true. They frequently acknowledge that their beliefs cannot be traced any earlier than the latter part of the 4th century, and in moments of candor acknowledge that Jovinianus and his ilk were closer to the orthodoxy of the early church than were Ambrose, Jerome and Siricius who condemned them.
Some examples of this phenomenon are worth quoting from Roman Catholic sources:
On Mary’s sinlessness:
“A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of the West does not occur until 377 [A.D.], with the publication of St. Ambrose’s three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. … the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature.” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol 1 (140-42)).
“The Immaculate Conception was a commonplace of the early Church. Saint Ephraim of Syria testified to it in the [late] fourth century [360 A.D.], as did Saint Augustine in the fifth.” (Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God,(Doubleday, 2006) 96)
On Mary’s virginity in partu:
“[The] early Fathers are not so clear; it is a far cry to the precise formulation by Zeno of Verona who wrote in the last half of the fourth century: ‘Maria virgo incorrupta concepit, post conceptum virgo peperit, post partum virgo permansit.’” (Plumpe, Joseph, C., “Some Little-Known Early Witnesses to Mary’s Virginitas in Partu“ Catholic University of America)
On Mary as “ever virgin”:
“Since we know that by the [late] fourth century, at the latest, a popular title for our Lord’s Mother was ‘ever virgin’, I believe this qualifies as a Universal Truth, held by all Christians, in all places, in all ages, in all times.” (The Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady)
On Mary as “Mother of God”:
Dionysius of Alexandia (d. 264 A.D.) is alleged to have used the term “ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ μου” (the Mother of my God) in his epistle Against Paul of Samosata. But “[s]ubsequent criticism has proved that it [the epistle of Dionysius Against Paul of Samosata] is a forgery of the [late] 4th century” (Dublin Review, No. XX, (London: Burnes, Oates & Co.) April 1868) 320-361).
“St. Ambrose [in the late 4th century] first used the title Mater Dei [Mother of God] in the West” (Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Michael O’Carroll, 258)
On Mary as Mother of the Church:
“The title was first used in the [late] 4th century by Saint Ambrose of Milan, as rediscovered by Hugo Rahner.”
On pilgrimages and the cult of saints:
“However in the 4th century, there was a significant sea change as the cult of saints and pilgrimage to holy places really took hold in Christian thought and practice.” (Dee Dyas, Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Culture at the University of York, To Be a Pilgrim Tactile Piety, Virtual Pilgrimage and the Experience of Place in Christian Pilgrimage)
On consecrated virginity:
“The ritual of consecration of virgins had become a formal practice in the Western church only at the end of the fourth century” (David Hunter, Cottrill-Rolfes Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Kentucky, The Virgin, the Bride and the Church).
On Marian theology:
“If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that [late 4th century] Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; certainly he was closer to early Christian ‘orthodoxy’ than … Ambrose and Jerome … .” (Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
On clerical celibacy:
“We will therefore choose the late 4th century as our chronological basis for inquiry on the birth and development of the law on clerical celibacy rather than the year 325, the date of the First Ecumenical Council.” (Christian Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy)
On the sudden focus on virginity in ascetic movements:
“In the later years of the fourth century the ascetic and monastic movements led male Christian writers to devote an extraordinary degree of attention to the bodies of women, especially celibate women.” (David G. Hunter, The American Society of Church History, June 2000 (283-84))
“The author of the anonymous Consultationes Zachaei equals, if he does not surpass, Hilary in his esteem for Mary. He … was also an adherent of the ascetical movement already favored by St. Hilary—a movement which almost literally mushroomed in the second half of the fourth century…” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol. II, p. 281).
On the earliest attempts to defend relic veneration:
“The Fathers of the Church take up the theme of the reverence paid to the sacred relics as early as the fourth and fifth centuries.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Relics)
On the Veneration of the Cross:
“We take this opportunity … to show the antiquity of the Catholic custom of venerating the Cross. Protestant authors insist that there is no vestige of our practice to be found in the records of the first three centuries. In the fourth and succeeding centuries the evidence of this veneration is so plain, that no Protestant writer of importance has ventured to impugn it.” (Parsons, Reuben, Studies in Church History, Volume 1 (2nd edition) (New York & Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1906 (464))
On the inability to trace Roman Catholicism back far enough:
“The acts of the fourth century speak as strongly as its words. … the simple question is, whether the clear light of the fourth and fifth centuries may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim, though definite, outlines traced in the preceding.” (John Cardinal Newman, On the Development of Christian Doctrine).
On the invisibility of Roman Catholicism in the early centuries:
“[I]f there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. … What is intended is, not to assert that the present devotion to Mary existed in the early ages; that may be so or not: but that the principle on which it is based naturally led to it, and may be assumed to have been intended by God to lead to it.” (Jesus, the Son of Mary, by the Rev. John Brande Morris, M.A., 1851, pp. 25-33.)
The list could go on. Over and over and over again, Roman Catholic scholars, historians, popes and apologists are left befuddled by their own inability to prove the apostolic antiquity of their idolatrous novelties, but this does not prevent them from claiming apostolic continuity. In fact, that apostolic continuity is simply assumed, and Protestant apologists and historians simply capitulate to the Roman Catholic claim. The collateral damage from that capitulation is the condemnation of the Woman of Revelation 12, of which condemnation Schaff and Elliott are but a small sampling.
Accepting the Roman Judgment against “Heretics”
Regarding item 2—the Protestant propensity for accepting Rome’s judgment upon late antique and medieval Christians—we bring forward the work of Fred C. Conybeare, and his assessment of the Paulician “heresy” in his excellent work, The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church in Armenia. Although there are many such examples from Conybeare, we will bring forward one that sufficiently makes our point. We will also bring forward another accusation made against the “church in the wilderness,” to show that the only charge that can truly be laid at the feet of the Woman is that she loved her Lord and believed His Scriptures.
The example we produce from Conybeare is painful to relate because he so valiantly investigated and exonerated the Paulicians of the charge of being either Marcionite or Manichæan. But other charges against them were maintained, and in contrast with his earlier skepticism, Conybeare was simply too credulous. Our example in this case is the charge that the Paulicians believed that they could change the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper into their own flesh and blood. As we will show, Conybeare was unable to pierce the veil of darkness that enshrouds the Roman Catholic view of history, and therefore could not evaluate the accusations in the light.
Importantly, Conybeare flatly acknowledged that he was ignorant on the Paulician view of the Lord’s Supper: “If we had the Paulician sacramentary we would know more about their view” (Conybeare, cxxxvi). Lacking actual knowledge, he simply accepted the later Roman Catholic accusations against the European Cathars, and attributed those accusations retroactively upon the Paulicians. He concludes therefore that “[w]e cannot doubt that these twelfth-century German heretics held the same theory of the Eucharist as the Paulicians” (Conybeare, lv). It is by this means that Conybeare attempted to back his way into the Paulician view of the Lord’s Table, imputing to them the false Roman Catholic accusations.
His evidence for the charges? Eckebert, the Benedictine Abbot of Schönau (d. 1184 A.D.), reported that there were in Germany certain heretics who rejected the idolatrous Roman Catholic mass and denied transubstantiation:
“They altogether despise, and consider as of no value, the masses which are celebrated in the churches; … For they say that the order of the priesthood is altogether lost in the Church of Rome, and in all the churches of the Catholic faith, and the true priests are not to be found except in their sect. They believe that the body and blood of Christ can be by no means made by our consecration, or received by us in our communion; but they say that they alone make the body of Christ at their tables … [for] they call their own flesh the body of the Lord; and forasmuch as they nourish their bodies by the food on their tables, they say that they make the body of the Lord.” (Eckebert, Sermones Contra Catharos, 1st Discourse, II; Maitland, Samuel Roffey, Facts and documents illustrative of the history, doctrine, and rites of the ancient Albigenses and Waldenses (London: Strong, Bristol and Exeter (1832) 355; see also (Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina (PL), volume 195, (Imprimerie Catholique, Paris, 1855) cols 15-16).
“From one man who came out of your hiding places I heard this piece of your wisdom—your body is the Lord’s ; and therefore you make the body of the Lord, when you bless your bread, and support your body with it.” (Eckebert, Sermones Contra Catharos, 11th Discourse paragraph XI, Maitland, 361-2, Migne P.L. 195, col 90).
The “heretics” despised the sacrifice of the mass, rejected transubstantiation and insisted that the bread is made flesh only in the sense that our body is the Lord’s flesh, and when we eat and drink, the bread and wine are metabolized into our flesh, and therefore, Christ’s. Remarkably, that is Conybeare’s “evidence” that the Paulicians believed they changed the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper into their own flesh and blood. But he should have known better since he reports in the very same work that the Paulicians accused the Romanists of changing the bread into “their own flesh and blood and not Christ’s” (Conybeare, 124).
Given the knowledge that the Paulicians believed, based on John 6, that Jesus had given, symbolically (συμβολικως), His own words as food and drink (Petri Siculi, Historia Manichaeorum seu Paulicianorum, R. 18 (Gottingae: Prostat apud Vandenboedk et Ruprecht (1846) pp. 12-13), the meaning of the Paulician observation is obvious: the Lord’s flesh and blood are symbolically His Words of eternal life. The Romanists do not have the words of eternal life, and therefore in the bread and wine of the mass they offer not Christ words to men as symbolical food and drink, but their own words as symbolical food and drink, which cannot save.
Additionally, the Scriptures identify our own physical bodies as the flesh of the Lord, and so the incredulous Eckbert was baffled not by a “heretical” novelty but by the very words of Scripture:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 6:15)
“For we are members of his body, of his flesh” (Ephesians 5:30).
In response to the Roman superstition of transubstantiation, the “heretics” had simply observed that the Romanists do not have the words of eternal life, and further that the only known process by which bread and wine is changed substantially into the Lord’s body and blood is when we eat it and it nourishes and supports our body, which is in fact the Lord’s flesh.
Not only is the Paulician position plainly Scriptural, but that is also how the Early Church spoke of the flesh and blood of the Lord—in the context of the bread and wine nourishing our physical bodies, the meat and drink of John 6 symbolically representing His words of life:
“[S]o likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 66)
“And as we are His members [Ephesians 5:30], we are also nourished by means of the creation … He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2.2)
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols (συμβολων), when He said: ‘Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;’ [John 6:34] describing distinctly by metaphor (allegories, αλληγορων) the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, Chapter 6; see Migne, P.G. VIII, col 296)
The Paulicians had simply invoked the Scriptures to explain their understanding of John 6 and the Last Supper, maintaining that only Christians are legitimately members of “His flesh,” and therefore it is only at the table of Christians that bread and wine can be metabolized into Christ’s flesh. But Conybeare could not see past the Roman accusations, and so was unable to see the Paulician arguments for what they were. Not only were the Paulician arguments purely Scriptural, but they also showed that it was they, rather than the Romanists, who had a legitimate connection to the Early Church. Unable to pierce the darkness of Roman Catholic prosecutorial fiction, Conybeare simply accepted the judgment of Eckbert and ran with it. The unfortunate result is that he joins in condemnation of the Woman of Revelation 12.
We will conclude this section with one more example of how false Roman Catholic charges against the “heretics” actually show instead how deeply they loved the Scriptures. The charge that has been leveled against these medieval “heretics” is that they believed that God had two wives who produced offspring. The charge comes from Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay (c. 1209 A.D.), and he writes,
“Also the heretics said that the good God had two wives, Collant and Colibant, and from them begat sons and daughters.” (Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, (Edward Peter, ed) (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania University Press (1980) 111-2)
“Item dicebant haeretici bonum Deum duas habuisse uxores, Collant et Colibant, et ex ipsis filios et filias procreasse.” (Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, Incipit Historia Albigenses, chapter 2)
Some Protestant historians, like Edmund Burke, when confronted with such shocking charges, were skeptical but otherwise ill-equipped to deal with them. He called the accusation “so absurd and horrid, as almost to leave a suspicion of exaggeration.” (Annual Register, Volume 13 (London (1771) 44). Almost.
We grant to Burke a conciliatory nod of appreciation for even suspecting ill motives in the accusers, but we nonetheless believe he was too hasty in his analysis. Indeed, the accusation actually tells us more about the “heretics” than initially meets the eye. When the veil of darkness is removed, the charges are not so absurd at all, for these “heretics” indeed believed that God had two wives, and further that His two wives begat sons and daughters to Him. In fact there is not a professing Christian who has any warrant whatsoever to deny it, for it is a truth revealed to us by God Himself.
While our Roman Catholic readers stand aghast at such “heresy,” we will pause briefly here to remind all of our readers of God’s own testimony about Samaria and Jerusalem, two sisters to whom He was married, who begat sons and daughters to Him, and who were adulterous in their promiscuity:
“Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.” (Ezekiel 23:3-4)
Our attentive readers will notice the phonetic similarity between “Aholah and Aholibah” and “Collant and Colibant.” Far from evidence of heresy, the charge leveled by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay at once proves the “heretics'” familiarity with the Old Testament Scriptures and their accuser’s ignorance of it. In light of God’s description of His two adulterous wives who “bare sons and daughters” to Him, it is not difficult to reconstruct the context that precipitated Peter’s accusation. To the Albigensians, Roman Catholicism was like God’s two apostate wives, Aholah and Aholibah, and there was nothing more to be done with Rome than what Ezekiel had done. Ezekiel was advised to “judge Aholah and Aholibah,” and “declare unto them their abominations” (Ezekiel 23:36). When the Albigensians did the same thing to the harlot Rome, Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay was oblivious to the context and marveled instead that anyone could believe God had two wives who bore Him sons and daughters. But the “heretics” believed it. Only those who believed and loved the Scriptures could have made such statements to Roman Catholicism, and only someone oblivious to the plain teachings of Scripture could have interpreted it as evidence of heresy.
Exonerating the Woman
We have paused briefly in our series to provide these examples and illustrations, above, in order to show how the Woman of Revelation 12 has for so long been overlooked in the annals of church history, and why her members have been so swiftly and constantly assailed by her own Protestant children. As observed above by William Burgh, our knowledge of the late antique and medieval heretics comes largely through their persecutors. Even respected Protestant historians have been too credulous in their analysis of the charges. Once the flood of Revelation 12 is identified and the charges against the Woman are examined in the light, “the main characteristics of a true faith may be seen” (Burgh, 794), and she rises in our esteem as the brilliant Woman of heavenly purity described in Revelation 12—those saints “which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 12:17).
We will continue the series in our next installment.
Why do you believe that the 4th century was the “end times”? We are now in the 21st century. The great apostasy would occur in the “end times”.
Mark, I just saw this question. Paul said the apostasy was already at work in the church 2 Thessalonians 2. Read the chapter. It’s hard to understand how you and many other Catholics can ignore the constant warnings that from within the church will come false teachers and apostasy, even describing the son of perdition putting himself up in the church as God. The first person of inquiry for any true believer should be the claims of a Pope. It’s seems too obvious. I don’t believe Tim has ever written that the 4th century was the end times. But he does clearly show that a religion with a leader making claims to be the Trinity on earth rose up in the church. The fact that Catholics aren’t skeptical of this shows there lack of heeding the warnings of scripture. Are you aware of any of this?
Riveting and Fascinating. So historians have accepted antichrist Rome’s reversal of history. The true church were the heretics and heretics were the faithful of God keeping his commandments. Just the way Satan wants it. How many Roman Catholics and Protestants have been deceived?! Amazing.
Ahhhh…!!!! Hahahaha..!!!!
RbM
Gentlemen.
We lost the Papacy when we lost the Papal States…
http://ourladysresistance.org/uploads/3/5/1/6/35164756/the_mystery_of_iniquity_revised.pdf
RbM
Thank you, RbM. At last, the True Roman Catholic Church is defended against its modern schismatics like Mark Rome and Timothy P. Thanks for showing that Mirari Vos infallibly rejected the separation of Church and State and freedom of speech, and condemns the notion “it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained,” the very thing Vatican II promoted.
I’m glad you can finally set all those heretical modern Roman Catholics straight.
By the way, I loved the part about not knowing whether certain teachings of the pope are ex cathedra:
Exactly.
Tim
Oh my. So a baptized son of the Church, in kind rejects his Mother, as the mark of a true reprobate…
But not with indifference towards her, but rather hatred for her; knowing not that it is not truly her that he abhors, but rather he enemy of his soul instead…
http://ourladysresistance.org/the-lady-of-fatima-and-the-unveiling-of-antichrist.html
RbM
http://ourladysresistance.org/uploads/3/5/1/6/35164756/the_lady_of_fatima_and_the_unveiling_of_antichrist_copy.pdf
Tim…???
Look at what you’ve done to Kevin, Tim…
Why, man… Why..??? How long are gunna continue this war against God…???
…
Tim,
This may be our last chance to stand up for Holy Mother Church… Join with me, and pray for Poland…
https://plus.google.com/+RescuedByMary/posts/QP56jtk6BKC
The Babylonian harlot is Islam, not Rome.
RbM
With a gold cup in its hand? God has always made things clear if your willing to look.
https://plus.google.com/+RescuedByMary/posts/BSE6aCmgjuX?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US
http://shoebat.com/2013/05/31/mystery-babylon-is-mecca-not-vatican/
RbM
Walid Shoebat writes,
John the Apostle writes,
No, “the Kaaba” is not a “perfect match.” Rome is the actual match, as John plainly states.
Tim
Rome is not in the desert, Bro…
RbM
Your point?
https://plus.google.com/+RescuedByMary/posts/FyJamMNLAix?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US
Would you take up arms against us, man…?
If it came right down to it, would you fight with us or against us…???
RbM
You wrote,
A funny question coming from you. Your religion has a history of taking up arms against Christ’s people. You continued,
Against. Your eucharistic idol is the Image of the Beast and I won’t bow to it. Your religion has killed many people like me who refuse to kneel before the idol.
Tim
Like I said, if Poland enters into a war against Islam, would you fight with us or would you fight with the mouhamadians…?
RbM
No, that’s not what you said. In any case, what Poland and the rest of the Europe, the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing now is probably the 6th bowl judgment (Revelation 16:12).
I won’t be found anywhere near Poland any time soon.
Tim
Look Tim.
The United States very well maybe called upon to honor their Solemn compact they’ve just entered into with Poland.
They have troops on the ground over there right now. Trump went to Poland first, remember…? We have arms agreements with them.
The Visgard-4 is the last stand for Christiandom in Europe.
Please Bro. Tell me you wouldn’t sit this one out, just because we’re Catholic…
I mean, if called upon, would you go…?
RbM
https://plus.google.com/+RescuedByMary/posts/Ha88a5vLe34
“I won’t be found anywhere near Poland any time soon.”
~ Tim
” Well lost the Papacy when we lost the papal states” protecting antichrist from antichrist. The irony!
https://plus.google.com/+RescuedByMary/posts/ZZgpxhq8eJ2?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US
RbM
RbM, I thought the irony is interesting in the video of Hungary. Hungary and Poland together?” Protestants and Catholics together” and above it Recused by Mary. Hilarious. Protestants aren’t going to be co laborers with those who think are rescued by Mary. If Catholics want to fight the Muslim immigration woes of Europe do it on your own. Spurgeon said we can never have a truce with Rome. He said this ” War, to the knife with her” He went on to say we should pray against her, and we should turn our faces to heaven when we pray. He said we shall not touch a hair on her priests head, but we should pray God would tie a millstone around her neck and throw her to the bottom of the sea! I agree.
RbM, nice to see a group of true Roman Catholics protecting against false doctrines like the apparitions of Mary and pointing out the apostasy in the modern Pope’s and antichrist. However, unless you are willing and able to see the works righteousness gospel and idolatry in the ” true” Roman Catholicism you will meet the same end.
Oh hey look fella…
Your protestant reformation was a catastrophe… You know nothing of Mary or her Divine Son.
You come around here to be spoon feed all this heretical smack from a backsliden catholic who is on the precipice of hell himself.
Why don’t you man up before Mother Mary turns you over her knee…
BEHOLD: The example of of some real men, who honor the the True apparition of their Mother.
A Queen for whom they spent the last thousand years spilling their blood for a free Catholic Poland…!
How many millions have died fighting for Her Honour. But what would you know of that…
Yea, that’s right. The true Mary is never far behind when Infidels are attacking the Church of God…! Her prayers help our fingers to fight and our hands to war…! Ave Maria…!
https://plus.google.com/+RescuedByMary/posts/RKSrzGxYoNw
RbM
” Oh hey look fella” Did you miss my name, or is this inquisition style address? ” your Protestant reformation was a catatrophe” results say otherwise. It launched multiple souls into assurance of salvation, and fulfilled the word of the Lord ” my kingdom is not of this world” springing composite society like the one you live in. No more use of the sword by the beast you serve that inflicted orthodoxy and orthopraxy on the people. ” You know nothing of Mary and her divine Son” If you mean that I know nothing of the Marian ego show in your false church or the the death wafer you bow too, you are correct. ” You come here to be spoon fed all this heretical smack from a backslidin Catholic who is on the precipice of hell himself” The other alternative is he is a believer who understands scripture and church history and he is shining a light on the beast you serve. And as far as him being on the precipice of hell, that probably won’t shame him back to Rome. God lifted the delusion from many former Catholics here, the one you are still under 2 Thessalonians 2:11. ” Why don’t you man up before mother Mary puts you over her knee” That’s right she is omnipotent with all you merry Mary worshippers. ” A queen” funny that’s not what she called herself a sinner and a bondslave. ” how many millions have died fighting for her honor” about as many like the idolator Franciss of Assisi who died trying to earn forgiveness through martyrdom in the crusades and failed since the beast you served declared no martyrs in the crusades. Add those those the Roman Catholics whose souls perished in Poland. ” Her prayers help our fingers to fight and hands to war” you forgot the part where she sits high above heaven oozing out the juju you earn for heaven.
What are you anyway dude, a preaching pacifist like that reprobate Zwingli… Pratting about with a wooden sword on his side…
Or maybe you follow the example Martin Luder the Beast…
Luther, the unhappy monk, devised a barbarian creed – salvation by faith alone.
Luther, known to have bouts with the devil as they hurled insults and feces at one another, and engage in battle by fart, would be set free from his own sinfulness by faith alone!, while being relieved of a bout of constipation.
“Knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy, in the tower”, Luther would say.
His theology was morally deficient of any intelligence or forethought.
The dump that Luther left on the theological landscape is of no ‘value’ to the Church.
This would be Luther’s throne, the toilet. He should have wiped his mouth before he flushed.
Pop yur mouth off about Saint Franciss if you will, but… …
Behold Poland’s Joan of Arc…!
I wouldn’t recommend you go over there and start slandering her, Padna.
http://rescuedbymary.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post.html?m=1
RbM
“And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Rev. 12:1 And this is just how Our Lady came in Her first major apparition at Guadalupe. “And there was a great battle in heaven – ” Rev. 12:7 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and the rest of Her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. 12:17.
GUADALUPE
The greatest example of Our Lady defending Doctrine but doing it in a loving and kind way, took place in 1531 on the other side of the world from a slaughter of people and Doctrine. In 1531 a man born with the name “Luder” which in German means “beast’, celebrated the slaughter of the peasants at his command by marrying a nun, and becoming the author of the “State Church” because as he said,
“He who owns the country owns the Church. He who makes the laws for you, has the right to make the religion for you. No finer government in the world is there than that of the Turks, who have neither a secular nor spiritual code of law, but only the Koran.”
He said that the Abbeys belonged to the princes, and that monasteries were dens of iniquity that the kings should root out and destroy. If the kings did this, he said, then God would bless them.
So began all state-controlled religions. Eventually some governments would go so far as to outlaw all religions, as in the case of the “French Revolution” and “Communism”. By 1984 Communism would outlaw religion in 74% of the entire world.
The main theological argument of Luder was that man has no free will to choose good or evil, and therefore cannot be blamed for any sin whatsoever.
“It is either God or the Devil that rules. Man has no freedom to choose and is absolutely devoid of responsibility. Having lost free will, man cannot observe the precepts of the ten commandments. He cannot master his passions. He must sin as long as he lives. Good works are useless. They are sin. And in fact, impossible. It is more important to guard against good works than to guard against sin.”
Now listen very carefully to the following writings of Luder and you will see where we are going with all of this.
“If men believe in Christ and accept Him as their personal Savior, His justice will be imputed to them and they will go straight to Heaven. It does not matter what evil they have done during their lives. It does not matter whether they are, or not, repentful of their sins. It does not matter at the moment of their death whether they have contrition or not, or if they are in the state of grace. If they have accepted Christ as their personal Savior they will be saved.”
He is Luder, the beast, but he changed his name to Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation. Today there are 27,000 Christian sects, and there are 400 new ones created every week.
At the same time that Martin Luder was crushing the peasants in 1531, and celebrating this by marrying a nun; at the same time that priests and nuns were being murdered; at the same time that Monasteries and Abbeys were being destroyed, and as Luder brought two million out of the Catholic Church, there was something else going on. On the same day, in the same year, on the other side of the world, atop a small hill in Guadalupe, Our Lady appeared to Juan Diego and, because of Her, ten million people were converted to the Faith and brought into the Kingdom within a year. Ten million before Luder died. Ten million in one year, between 1531 and 1532. God will not be mocked. Let us learn from Our Lady how to answer Martin Luther’s heresy.
On the other side of the world in Mexico were Aztecs. The Aztecs were afraid of nature, and out of nature they made their gods. They were afraid of the sun, the moon, the stars, the rain, the wind, fire, and so on, and they made these their personalized gods and goddesses. They built idols of these, and they worshipped them in the pyramid temples. They offered human sacrifices to these gods. They regarded themselves as “The People of the Sun”, since the sun was their primary god. For fear that the sun might not rise again, they offered human sacrifices to the sun god. Victims of these sacrifices were often prisoners, slaves, children, or unwanted babies.
While still alive, a black-robed, long-haired priest tore out their heart and held it in his hand offering it to his sun god as he watched the heartless victim die. In some rituals they mutilated and ate their victims alive. They would kill thousands of humans on any one of their feast days. On the inauguration day of their temple pyramid in 1487 they killed over 20,000 people on their altars in one day.
The mightiest of their gods was the feathered or stoned serpent to whom many thousands were sacrificed every year. Another of their gods was the mother god, whose temple stood on a small hill that would later become Guadalupe. Her head was a combination of snakes heads and her clothes a mass of living serpents.
To fight the heresy of Martin Luther and the People of the Sun, Our Lady appeared to an Indian and said”
“Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God through Whom everything lives – the Lord of all things, who is the master of heaven and earth. …”
“Do not fear … Am I not here, who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of My Mantle, in the crossings of My Arms? Is there anything else you need?
And then Our Lady left Her image on the Indian’s Tilma, a Lady Clothed in the Sun, with the Moon at her feet and surrounded by 12 stars, and yet praying to God, more powerful than Her. This was Our Lady of Chapter 12 of Revelation. This was God sending His Mother into the world to answer the heresies of Martin Luther and the “People of the Sun.”
Using a copy of this Tilma Picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Don Juan defeated the Moslems in the great sea battle known today as the Battle of Lipanto. From this battle came the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.
What are you anyway dude” I am believer in the gospel of scripture Mark 1:15. What are you? Salvation by faith alone” yes the scripture tells me I am justified by faith apart from the law. Paul said Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to all who BELIEVE, not the beginning of the law for righteousness to all who BELIEVE in Roman Catholicism. Ad hominemn against Luther doesn’t disqualify his work. He rightly identified the Papacy as antichrist. ” would set free his own sinfulness by faith alone” that’s what scripture teaches that we pass out of judgment having all our sins forgiven by repenting and believing the gospel. Incidentally, the gospel is told and believed, not done. ” His was morrally deficient of any intelligence or forthought” or he was used by God to return us to the tenets of scripture and to identify the beast you serve as the beast. ” is of no ” value” to the church.” What church are you talking about. You’ll find much information here on the true church and of the false church. I hope you read this current series. ” I wouldn’t recommend you go over there and start slandering her” Oh I can imagine the inquisition of your words. Why don’t you consider repenting of your goodness and believing in the gospel. Judaism can’t save you, neither can Mary. But thanks for the exchange ” fella” k
RbM, ” The woman was clothed with purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of unclean things of her immortality, and on her head was written a mystery, BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” RbM, the Holy Spirit even capitalized it so you wouldn’t miss it. You don’t need an infallible teaching office or an ex cathedra declaration by the Vicar of the Son of God to get that huh? Did you catch the colors and the gold cup part. It’s like a new moon. K
Hi Tim, I read what I believe was a joint article on Piper and justification by you. I thought it was spot on. Have a great New Year. Thanks again for so much biblical teaching. Your brother Kevin
Kevin, Tim let a recent post of mine pass so I did want to respond to Layne now also being banned from the One Fold site. I guess Layne and I are now homeless as we cannot find anyone to debate the Real presence belief of the early Church. If you can find us a site where we can debate the issue without censorship I would love to carry on. I thought it interesting that you continue to state “Bread was never offered to God” after reading Ireneaus’s quote Layne provided
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
Now Kevin, in the above quote what is “this sacrifice” ? Hint
“both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ” . And if “this sacrifice” is not offered to God, who is it offered to?
Timothy P,
There is little that can be done for you, as you are unable to ingest, process or understand historical data. The answers to your ridiculous questions, and your ridiculous claims about the “real presence” in the early church have already been answered repeatedly here, yet you cannot see or understand because you are unable to think about facts and process them, perchance to grasp them and factor them into your world view.
If you had provided just one early church reference to “the real presence”, there would be something to talk about, but you have been asked to provide such a reference in the past, and you have been unable to do so.
In any case, if you wish to respond to One Fold for banning you, I am not clear on why you are sending your “response” here, since (as you may perhaps realize, but it is not clear to me that you are able to understand) this is not One Fold.
Have a good week.
Tim
Timothy P, it’s a new year. You’ve been kicked off a couple blogs. Time to move on. This discussion is finished. All the best.
Ah, I see. I was wondering where you got this research and whether it was original to yourself. I see now where it came from, likely in part since Cooke discusses this 2 years ago.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%20328%20A%20Protestant%20View%20of%20Church%20History%20Cooke.pdf
I see he has a lot more tracks on the subject since that article. Interesting where you left off the series, and where he seems to continue to take it.
Obviously, you don’t have to publish my comments and expose yourself to the chance that others will know you may have copied Cooke’s research, but we can leave it between our good selves! I still enjoy your work as we need more people to follow in Cooke’s research and make it more public.
Hi Tim,
I recently heard some of your lectures at trinityfoundation.org and found them very informative and helpful.
I also noted from some of the discussion above that visions of Mary are really taken seriously by some people.
I work with a couple of Roman Catholic guys and have never heard them mention these visions.
Is this type of thinking widespread amongst certain western countries perhaps and not others? I live in Australia and have not heard of these visions of Mary from Roman Catholics I know. Perhaps I need to “get out more”. Thx.
John,
I would caution you to not jump too deep into Tim’s teachings on eschatology. In my view, the reason he does not post any more here since august last year is that his theory was reaching a major problem compared to the best reformed interpreters. Privately via email we have showed Tim has errors in interpretation and it was only a matter of time before he saw his conclusion on his dates were impossible to support in history and scripture. My recommendation is to chew on some of the meat in this blog but spit out the bones of error that surround his theory.
If you disagree publicly and biblically with him, he will block you so best to play submission like Kevin has who has been blocked but let back in if he would stay the party line. If this gets through it will likely be removed so hopefully you are it before it is removed.
This is Walt’s version of disagreeing publicly and biblically when he was accusing me of plagiarism earlier this year:
Speculation.
Which is a way of saying, “I am not sure at all that you have plagiarized.”
Speculation.
This is how the Church of Scotland has taught Walt to disagree biblically and publicly:
No evidence of plagiarism at all, which is why Walt couched his accusation in nuanced ambiguities in which there is the presumption of guilt but no actual evidence.
Thus, he writes,
Because in Walt’s view, biblical public disagreement is to accuse and render judgment without evidence, so much has he learned from his Church of Scotland.
“Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51)
Tim
If you go to reprove a fool he will slap you in the face. Walt is a fool according to proverbs. He has shown he cant take reproof.
Walt,
Thankyou for the warning. I try with any teaching to apply the Berean principle. That includes my own long cherished beliefs. I need continually to be cleansed of the sin of wrong ideas. And I have too many of those to count.
I only came across Tim by accident. I had no iron in the fire regarding Romanism. I knew Rome was wrong Biblically on the doctrine of Justification by faith alone and that was where I left it. I thought, “if the teaching is erroneous there, and I have to do something to get into heaven, then I’m a gonner, cos I know I sin every day and struggle mightily to overcome besetting sins, the sins that so easily beset me”. I knew I had to look outside of myself completely to another for salvation cos I couldn’t keep the law of God.
But what may surprise you is that I only came to that realisation nearly 40 years after “saying a little prayer to ask Jesus into my heart”. For 40 years both my wife and myself had never understood Justification by faith alone. We had our “quiet time” daily, read the Scriptures daily, prayed daily, went to church 3 times a week – every week, did Bible Studies, memorised the Shorter catechism, raised 5 kids and sent them to a Reformed christian school, read volume after volume of the Reformers and Puritans and Ryle and Spurgeon and MLJ. It was only through a friend who gave me some mp3’s by a guy called John Robbins that suddenly the penny dropped. And why did it drop? Well for both my wife and I, it was due to the contrasts that Dr Robbins presented, that made the truth come into focus. Of Job it was said that he “feared God and eschewed evil.”….. +ve and -ve if you like. The contrast made all the difference. When I looked at my sins and the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of Christ I finally knew for sure that I could never earn my salvation. Talk about the truth shall set you free! It was like soaring on eagles wings. And still is!!
So we started to gobble up as much of Robbins and Gordon H. Clark as we could. Finally, the shackles of emotionalism, and feeling good, and the ideas of “God being my servant to fix my problems”, were starting to drop away. That was about 3 years ago, after 40 years of being in Presbyterian churches (in Australia).
As we started listening to more of Dr Robbins and Clark we came across Tim on the same website. I hadn’t bothered listening to the conferences about Roman Catholics on the website because it still wasn’t a concern for me. However, during an extended trip in the car we started listening to Richard Bennett and Tim Kauffman. Well this was new!! Never heard any of this before about Rome. Had literally no idea of all the extras that were taught by Rome. We downloaded some sermons by John MacArthur on the topic and it was more of the same. Re-read Calvin etc and as I said before, the penny dropped about Rome’s teachings and the anti-christ.
But what was it that made the difference? Again, it was the contrasts that were used. What Rome taught and what the Bible said. Tim and Richard made this very clear.
Also, what I have appreciated more and more on this blog, is the “toing and froing” that occurs between Tim, Kevin and Jim, Bob. Jim and Bob would present their arguments “for” and Tim and Kevin would bring up the contrasts. Both sides often argued from Scripture. I used to be in Jim’s corner, then in Tim’s, then in Bob’s, then in Kevin’s. But it was always with Tim and Kevin that I remained. It was their content from Scripture that convinced me about the errors of Rome and they both knew the “extras” that Rome used in presenting its story. As Dr Robbins would say, “It’s the strychnine in the orange juice” that’s the problem. Tim and Kevin have been immensely helpful to me in identifying the “strychnine”, or the contrast to truth, if you will.
This then leads to your point of warning about Tim’s eschatology. As I mentioned a week or so ago here, I have read Iain Murray’s “Puritan Hope” and Ryle’s version of pre-mill and John MacArthur’s sermons on Revelation and Loraine Boettner on the Millenium. Some of these I read many years ago. What I remember from them collectively is that none made a complete picture. They each had gaping holes. Hal Lindsey was a good novel, but hardly to be taken as an explanation of the Bible, ditto Tim LaHaye.
I had almost given up on finding sense in eschatology. Yet, gnawing in the back of my mind was “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”. This I could not ignore. This cannot be a smoke screen. Revelation (i.e. the propositions of Scripture) is given that we might understand it, not that we might be confused. It is perspicuous, but we have to learn to read. Even the Pharisees had to learn to read. But didn’t they read the Bible every day and study it? Yet the Lord said “Have you not read?” Obviously they had not read, even though they were the scholars.
So, I figured that there must be an angle that eschatology needed to be approached from. But I didn’t have a clue what that angle was.
Enter years later, Tim K.
After hearing his lectures on Romanism and also reading his take on John Piper recently, I thought to google “Tim Kauffman”. Hey, he has a blog. Wonder what it’s about? “Come Hell or High Water”…what’s this about? My wife and I started to read and read and read. As well as reading Tim’s essays, we read the comments left by everyone, the “toing and froing”.
What really piqued my interest was the “angle” Tim has taken on trying to unravel the Scriptures on eschatology. He is consistent, bold, clear and accurate to the data he cites. He also tries to give a complete picture. The picture of-course is from Daniel chapter 2 to Revelation, where the Prophets and Apostles are warning God’s people about slipping in to the snare of the Devil; and of being beguiled by him. That’s the negative of the picture. The positive is about having “an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches”.
It seems to me that Tim and Kevin’s knowledge of Rome is very helpful to appreciate the Scriptural history about the Anti-Christ. It is this approach, this method of contrast with the history of Romanism vs the Scripture, that is making so much sense to me as I read the passages expounded by Tim.
Will I stop trying to “search the Scriptures to see if these things are so”? I hope not. But I do want to know “What the Spirit says to the churches”. I am not content to let it all slide by as some do and become a PAN-mileniallist…i.e. It’ll all pan out in the end.
Thx,
John
One question has been nagging me as I read through your site. You’ve listed the various doctrines that were innovated in the 4th century and became orthodox. Protestants reject them. What about the full, unqualified divinity of Jesus and the third person of the Trinity?
Throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries there was no single accepted doctrine of Jesus’ divinity, let alone a trinity. There was a general notion that Jesus was divine, but this was qualified in various ways. For example, some held that Jesus became fully divine upon his resurrection and ascension.
So why do today’s Protestant churches go along with the RCC’s innovations to Jesus’ divinity?
Or perhaps you disagree with this assessment. If so, I can post references supporting the thesis.