Follow
Last week we discussed the fact that the apostles went from city to city proclaiming the gospel, ordaining elders and teaching them. When they knew their ministry was approaching its end, the apostles entrusted the sheep to the Holy Spirit and His Word, and implored the sheep to beware the soon rise of false apostles who would attempt to lead them astray:
“[A]fter my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30)
“[T]here shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways;” (2 Peter 2:1-2)
Roman Catholic apologists tend to read these warnings as early evidence of the need for a strong central episcopate in Rome to protect the sheep from error. However the evidence from the Scriptures does not suggest any such thing, and the evidence from the Early Church does not suggest that they saw a need for one.
As we noted last week, when Peter was getting ready to fold up his tent, he urgently wrote to the sheep that they should be very mindful of the words of the apostles, the prophets and the Lord (2 Peter 3:2). He did not commend them to the care of his successor in Rome. When Paul was on his way to Rome, he commended the Ephesian elders at Miletus “to God, and to the word of his grace” (Acts 20:32), imploring them to remember his words (Acts 20:31) and Jesus’ words (Acts 20:35). The Holy Spirit had established them as overseers whose responsibility it was “to feed the church of God” (Acts 20:28), and they were to feed the Church with the words of the apostles, the prophets and the Savior. He did not commend them to the care of Peter’s successor in Rome.
Thus when we read Clement’s letter to Corinth, we see him imploring the Corinthians to heed the words of the apostle Paul (Clement, to the Corinthians, chapters 5, 47). Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, knows that Clement was bishop of Rome, and therefore can only see in his letter early traces of the rise of a strong central episcopate, a visible chief shepherd on earth. Yet it was standard practice in the early church for a bishop in one city to write to the congregation of another city, and Clement hardly exercised a unique prerogative in this regard. As evidenced by Ignatius’ letters to the churches, and Polycarp’s letter to Philippi, such letters were common practice. A bishop writing to another congregation was hardly a projection of power and authority, but was rather evidence of a fraternal affection between congregations as the early churches sought to encourage one another in this remarkable new religion that had so rapidly expanded throughout the known world.
Thus, upon Polycarp’s death, his bereaved congregation sent news of his martyrdom to every congregation in the world:
“The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, salutation)
We note first of all that the Church of Smyrna presumed to address “all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place” without first having their story vetted by a chief shepherd in Rome. They simply wrote to every congregation in the known world as if it was the most natural thing to do. Second, we notice that Smyrna provided additional instructions: the epistle was to be copied by its recipients and transmitted to those who were even farther away:
“When, therefore, you have yourselves read this Epistle, be pleased to send it to the brethren at a greater distance, that they also may glorify the Lord, who makes such choice of His own servants.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 20)
Was Smyrna exercising its authority over all the churches of the world? Was Smyrna destined to be that strong central episcopate that would finally unite the fledgling church of Christ? Should we hail the rise of Smyrna which would unite the scattered sheep of the Early Church? Of course not. The Early Church did not see the need for a visible chief shepherd on earth because they already knew they had One in heaven.
Notably, the church at Smyrna recognized their need for only two shepherds of the Catholic Church: a visible one in Smyrna over the local congregation, and an Invisible One in heaven over all:
“[T]his most admirable Polycarp was … bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna…” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 16)
“[O]ur Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 19)
We see this same concept affirmed by Ignatius when he wrote to Polycarp. Ignatius addressed Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna, and then paused briefly to note that Polycarp himself had a Shepherd, and his Shepherd was not in Rome:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to Polycarp, greeting)
He confirms this again in his letter to the Magnesians. Ignatius warned them not to rebel against the local bishop “on account of his youth.” To do so would not only be contrary to the teachings of the apostles (1 Timothy 4:12), but would also be a mockery against an invisible Shepherd in heaven:
“It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Magnesians, chapter 3)
What is missing in the Smyrnæan letter is any indication that there was a “Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world” in Rome. What is missing in Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians is the slightest hint of a suggestion that if they did not honor their bishop, they would be mocking their bishop’s bishop in Rome. What is missing in Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp is the slightest hint of a suggestion that Polycarp, though bishop of Smyrna, himself had his own bishop in Rome. The reason Smyrna identifies no visible “Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world,” and Ignatius expresses no concern for the dignity of a chief shepherd in Rome to whom either the Magnesians or Polycarp must answer, is because such a concept did not exist in the early church. There were bishops and elders and presbyters established in “every city” (Titus 1:5), and then there was a Chief Shepherd in Heaven. It was He, not a chief shepherd presiding from a strong central episcopate, Who administered the affairs of His Church, and it was by Him that the shepherds were shepherded.
Thus, when Ignatius was on his way to his martyrdom in Rome, he did not rejoice that there was yet a chief shepherd in Rome to watch out for his flock. He knew that he had left his church in Antioch without a visible shepherd, but they would not be deprived of their Invisible One. The consolation Ignatius took to his death was that even if his church lacked a visible shepherd, there yet remained an invisible One in heaven Who alone (!) would oversee the sheep:
“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Romans, chapter 9)
We emphasize that his letter was to the Roman Church. If there was a nascent universal bishopric in Rome at the time of Ignatius’ letters, “Jesus Christ alone will oversee … the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd,” hardly instills in his readers any sense that Ignatius was even remotely aware of it. Rather, like Polycarp’s bereaved congregation, Ignatius saw in himself a “bishop of the Catholic Church which is in [Syria],” and saw in Christ a “Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” He did not see a chief shepherd in Rome, and his letters reflect a belief that the shepherds of the church were themselves shepherded from on high in heaven, not from Rome. The Early Church was Catholic, but it was not Roman Catholic.
That, of course, has not prevented Roman Catholic apologists from attempting to read into Ignatius a latent deference to the bishop of Rome. Bryan Cross, erstwile Protestant and author at Roman Catholic apologetics site, Called to Communion, thinks he has found in Ignatius some evidence of an ascendant Roman primacy. Cross writes,
“In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Ignatius writes in a very different manner from the tone in his other letters. He never enjoins the Christians at Rome to submit to their leaders. Instead he asks them to pray for him.” (Bryan Cross, St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church)
Ignatius indeed instructs the Ephesians to “obey the bishop” (chapter 20). And he tells the Magnesians to “be united with your bishop” (chapter 6). And he tells the Trallians to be “subject to the bishop” (chapter 2). And he tells the Philadelphians to “give heed to the bishop” (chapter 7). And he tells the Smyrnæans to “follow the bishop” (chapter 8). There is no such admonition to the Romans. What are we to understand by Ignatius’ failure to instruct the sheep in Rome to be subject to their bishop? Does this mean the Roman sheep are not to submit to their bishop? Or does it mean that the congregation in Rome submits to no one, not even its own bishop? Was the early church ruled by the oligarchy of the congregation at Rome, and not its bishop? Does it mean that the Roman bishop was unworthy of their submission? What a plethora of invalid inferences could be drawn from such an omission! But Cross thinks he has the one invalid inference that matters: the missing imperative in Ignatius’ letter simply must mean that Ignatius saw the Roman bishop as the universal primate. As we shall demonstrate, Bryan Cross’s approach to the text is folly.
What, for example, are we to infer from Ignatius’ use of the word “Sanhedrin” to describe the authority of the presbyters? The Sanhedrin was the highest judicial body and council of elders in ancient Jerusalem, and Ignatius refers to the presbyters as the Sanhedrin. The problem is that he uses that appellation to describe the presbyters in Tralles, and he uses it to describe them alone:
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Trallians, chapter 3)
No other assembly of presbyters in any other city is described this way in his letters. Apart from the leaders of Tralles—the very “sanhedrin of God”—there is no Church? Maybe Tralles was to be that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep. Their presbyters were as the Sanhedrin “and the assembly of the apostles.” There can be no higher ecclesiastical authority on earth than “the Sanhedrin of God.” All hail Tralles, the strong central episcopate of the universal church! (Such an approach to the text is folly, but it is the approach Bryan Cross uses.)
What, for another example, are we to infer from the fact that in Ignatius’ six letters to the churches, he “salutes” every church but Ephesus? He salutes Magnesia (greeting, chapter 15), Tralles (greeting, chapters 12, 13), Rome (greeting, chapter 9), Philadelphia (greeting, chapter 11), and Smyrna (chapters 11, 12). But in his letter to the Church at Ephesus, he extends no formal salutation. What could such an omission mean? What hidden message can be found in it? Perhaps it means that Ephesus held the primacy. After all, Ephesus is the only church Ignatius addresses that can defeat the powers of Satan simply by assembling! (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, chapter 13). No other congregation in Ignatius’ letters has this power! Maybe Ephesus was to be that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep. To such a church as this no salutation is necessary! The salutation of the whole Christian church is already implied by its very existence! All hail Ephesus, the strong central episcopate of the universal church! (Such an approach to the text is folly, but it is the approach Bryan Cross uses.)
What, for yet another example, are we to infer from Ignatius’ selective descriptions of how “established” each church was? He says the church of Ephesus is “established in safety” (chapter 12). He says the church in Smyrna is “established in love” (chapter 1). But of the church in Philadelphia, Ignatius reserves the highest honor: it is doubly established “in harmony” and “in security” (greeting). But Magnesia, on the other hand, is not yet established, and must still “study … to be established” (chapter 13). What is worse, neither the church of Rome nor the church of Tralles are “established” at all. What can this mean? What hidden message can be found in such an omission? Of all the churches Ignatius addressed, only those that are mentioned by Christ in Revelation 2 – 3 (Ephesus, Smyrna and Philadelphia) are described as already “established,” and of those, only Philadelphia, with whom Jesus found nothing wrong (Revelation 3:7-13), is doubly established. What else can this mean, but that Magnesia was in danger, and that Tralles and Rome were on the very precipice—if they had not already succumbed to disaster—and that Philadelphia was doubly established in its primacy! Small wonder, therefore, that Ignatius believed himself to be “greatly enlarged in loving” the Philadelphians (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Philadelphians, chapter 5), an epithet assigned to no other church in any of his letters. Maybe Philadelphia was that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep. This is surely confirmed by the fact that Philadelphia alone is excluded from Ignatius’ prayers for “an abundance of happiness.” He wishes “an abundance of happiness” for Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Smyrna and Polycarp in his respective greetings to each, but he withholds such a wish for Philadelphia. Surely this is because he knows that the bishop there had already achieved the perfection of happiness, and is already an example of “infinite meekness”:
“Wherefore my soul declares [the bishop’s] mind towards God a happy one, knowing it to be virtuous and perfect, and that his stability as well as freedom from all anger is after the example of the infinite meekness of the living God.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Philadelphians, chapter 1)
Philadelphia is doubly established, and does not want for the abundance of happiness for which all the other churches are yet striving? Its bishop had already achieved perfection? This can hardly speak of anything else but the emergence of a Philadelphian primacy that would be so necessary to the shepherding of the fledgling church! All hail Philadelphia, the strong central episcopate of the universal church! (Such an approach to the text is folly, but it is the approach Bryan Cross uses.)
Our point is that if someone looks long enough and hard enough, he will find something Ignatius ascribes to one church and to no other, and in that uniqueness he will find what he is looking for. The only Roman primacy Cross finds in Ignatius is the Roman primacy he carried with him to the text. But we know better. A plain reading of Ignatius has him as just one bishop among many, writing to the various congregations to encourage them. Many shepherds over many individual congregations, all answering to an invisible Chief Shepherd in heaven, not a visible pope in Rome.
Cross then continues in his folly, claiming that at the turn of the century (c. 100 A.D.), there was already a recognized primacy among the apostolic sees most closely related to Peter:
“It is worth recalling that at this time there was a recognized primacy in the three apostolic churches: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. They held a primacy not because of their size or importance, but because of their relation to St. Peter. But St. Ignatius here shows deference to the Church at Rome, in contrast to the tone he adopts in his other letters.” (Bryan Cross, St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church, emphasis added)
As we have already demonstrated, there is no “tone” in the letters that Byran Cross did not import into them—or which we could not import ourselves if we were so inclined—but his claim about the triple “primacy” of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria is plainly anachronistic. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria would not be claimed as the Three Petrine Sees until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome (Council of Rome, III.3)—almost three centuries after Ignatius’ letters—and then only to exclude Constantinople which had had the temerity to claim in 381 A.D. a prerogative too grand for Rome’s liking. Thus, Cross’ historical evidence for an emergent Roman primacy among the Three Petrine Sees “at this time” is almost three centuries removed from the date of Ignatius’ letters. His claim of a recognized Roman primacy “at this time,” as it turns out, was not “at this time” at all. By invoking such an anachronism, Cross shows that he has merely used his assumption of early Roman primacy in order to prove the existence of an early Roman primacy. Ignatius of Antioch was clearly unaware of it.
If Cross is truly desirous of finding a “tone” in Ignatius’ letters, perhaps he should investigate Ignatius’ autocratic “tone” when he directs all the churches of the known world to go on pilgrimage to Antioch. Ignatius appeals to the various churches to turn their attention to Antioch to celebrate the fact that she has been restored to her proper greatness (!). After asking all the churches to pray for the church at Antioch (yes, every church, not just Rome: Ephesus (chapter 21); Magnesia (chapter 14); Tralles (chapter 13);and Rome (chapter 9)), Ignatius rejoices that Antioch is again at peace and insists that all the other churches send delegates to Antioch to congratulate her. Indeed, what honor! What privilege! What condescension by Antioch that the other churches should be deemed worthy to travel so far to congratulate her! And sooner is better for Philadelphia, because everyone else is already of ahead of her in this regard:
“Since, according to your prayers, and the compassion which you feel in Christ Jesus, it is reported to me that the Church which is at Antioch in Syria possesses peace, it will become you, as a Church of God, to elect a deacon to act as the ambassador of God [for you] to [the brethren there], that he may rejoice along with them when they are met together, and glorify the name [of God]. Blessed is he in Jesus Christ, who shall be deemed worthy of such a ministry; and you too shall be glorified. And if you are willing, it is not beyond your power to do this, for the sake of God; as also the nearest Churches have sent, in some cases bishops, and in others presbyters and deacons.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Philadelphians, chapter 10).
The same too applies to Smyrna. Now that Antioch has been re-established, the distant churches must now go on pilgrimage to rejoice with her. And not just some of them. All of them. To seek the honor of Antioch is actually to seek “the honour of God,” and no bishop’s work is perfect or complete unless he, too, has arranged for the pilgrimage:
“Your prayer has reached to the Church which is at Antioch in Syria. … In order, therefore, that your work may be complete both on earth and in heaven, it is fitting that, for the honour of God, your Church should elect some worthy delegate; so that he, journeying into Syria, may congratulate them that they are [now] at peace, and are restored to their proper greatness, and that their proper constitution has been re-established among them. … As persons who are perfect, you should also aim at those things which are perfect.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Smyrnæans, chapter 11)
“Seeing that the Church which is at Antioch in Syria is, as report has informed me, at peace, through your prayers … It is fitting, O Polycarp, most blessed in God, to assemble a very solemn council, and to elect one whom you greatly love, and know to be a man of activity, who may be designated the messenger of God; and to bestow on him this honour that he may go into Syria, …. Now, this work is both God’s and yours, when you shall have completed it to His glory.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to Polycarp, chapter 7)
As if this were not enough, Ignatius then directs Polycarp to spread the word—the adjacent churches, too, ought to send worthy men to Antioch:
“Inasmuch as I have not been able to write to all the Churches, because I must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis, as the will [of the emperor] enjoins, [I beg that] you, as being acquainted with the purpose of God, will write to the adjacent Churches, that they also may act in like manner, such as are able to do so sending messengers …” (Ignatius of Antioch, to Polycarp, chapter 8)
All churches must journey to Antioch? All churches must convene solemn councils to elect deacons, bishops and presbyters for the honor of traveling to Antioch to perform this perfect work? Maybe Antioch was that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep. Maybe Bryan Cross is right: Ignatius was, according to John Chrysostom, Peter’s successor there. And Antioch, because of its significance, represented “the whole world” in the eyes of God. Ignatius was Peter’s equal, and it was there in Antioch that God had built His Church:
“Thus in His sight our city [Antioch] was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (John of Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter IV).
All hail Antioch! All hail Antioch! All hail Antioch, the strong central episcopate of the universal church!
We are merely being facetious, of course, but we need hardly wonder what Bryan Cross would do with these statements of Ignatius had they emanated from Rome, or these statements from Chrysostom had they been spoken of Linus. Evidence of a strong central episcopate? Hardly. Our point is that Ignatius was requesting that all churches either send messengers or send letters to Antioch to congratulate her, “such as are able to do so sending messengers, and the others transmitting letters” (Ignatius of Antioch, to Polycarp, chapter 8).
He also implored the Smyrnæans “that you should send some one of your number with an epistle” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Smyrnæans, chapter 11)—so common was it for the fraternity of bishops to communicate with one another by letters and by messengers. After all, “whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26). Sometimes letters were for encouragement, sometimes for instruction, sometimes for correction, and sometimes for rejoicing and mutual congratulation. Ignatius was as likely to write to the other churches as he was to ask to be written to. Such was the behavior of a fraternity of congregations of the Early Church.
Cross then goes on and imagines Ignatius submitting to Rome because he describes her as the church “which presides over love” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Romans, greeting). This is a clear indication—at least to Cross—that Rome had primacy among the Three Petrine Sees:
“He speaks to the Church at Rome rather as she who ‘προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης’ (presides in/over love). This seems to be an indication of his recognition of the primacy had by the Church at Rome, even among the three apostolic Churches, since he himself was the bishop of the Church at Antioch.” (Bryan Cross, St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church)
But if Rome only “presides over love,” then what abject submission, adulation and worship is due to the church at Magnesia whose “bishop presides in the place of God“!? (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Magnesians, chapter 6) No other bishop is described this way. How can the Petrine primacy of Rome, Antioch or Alexandria possibly compete with the bishop of Magnesia? All hail Magnesia, the strong central episcopate of the universal church! Such is the foolishness that Bryan Cross brings with him to the Early Church Fathers when he seeks to find a Petrine and Roman primacy in Ignatius’ letters to the churches.
Ignatius repeatedly emphasized that there were bishops over the congregations, and then above them an invisible Chief Shepherd in heaven (To the Magnesians, chapter 3; To the Romans, chapter 9; To Polycarp, greeting). The Smyrnæans recognized this as well (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapters 16, 19). The Early Churches wrote letters to each other, knowing how closely knit together they must be for their mutual encouragement, edification and admonition. Clement wrote to Corinth. Polycarp wrote to Philippi. Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, as well as Ephesus, Tralles, Magnesia, Rome, Philadelphia and Smyrna. Smyrna wrote to Philomelium addressing every congregation on earth, and Ignatius directed every congregation on earth to send visitors and epistles to Antioch. Roman Catholicism takes one of those letters (Clement to Corinth) and can see nothing but papal primacy, and takes another (Ignatius to Rome) and can see nothing but abject submission to a strong central episcopate. As we have demonstrated above, their approach is folly. There was no knowledge yet, not even an inkling, of a chief shepherd in Rome.
That time would come of course, for the Scriptures had foreseen it. And with that strong central episcopate would come the general apostasy of which Paul had warned (2 Thessalonians 2:3). That was nearly three centuries away at the time of Ignatius’ letters, for Roman Catholicism had not yet come upon the earth.
Because we have drawn from John Chrysostom’s homily on Ignatius, above, we thought it appropriate to close this week’s article with another notable citation from his homily on the martyr of Antioch. Chrysostom is commenting on the preference the persecutors had for taking away the bishops from their flocks. Silly persecutors—don’t they know men do not govern the church of God? Don’t they know that they can take away the local shepherds, but not the Chief Shepherd in heaven who administers His Church?
“For the devil, being crafty, and apt to contrive plots of this kind, expected that if he took away the shepherds, he would easily be able to scatter the flocks. But He who takes the wise in their craftiness, wishing to show him that men do not govern His church, but that it is He himself who everywhere tends those who believe in Him, agreed that this should be, that he might see, when they were taken away, that the cause of piety was not defeated, nor the word of preaching quenched, but rather increased;” (John Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter 4)
We will continue with this series next week as we examine more writings of the subapostolic age that testify to a broad consensus in the early church that it was Jesus, and no earthly primate, Who shepherded His Church from on high, and from no earthly city.
Tim,
After reading this weeks post, it slowly started to dawn on me that you are an independent and not a presbyterian. I can see parallels between you and other independents who claim to be presbyterians, and as I read today’s blog post it became overly clear with all the sarcasm and cynicism sprinkled throughout.
I suspect (as it makes sense) why you focus on primacy of the early church fathers, who like the Apostles, were “infants” in understanding the Scripture revelations…as they really had no New Testament bible in their possession to “compare Scripture with Scripture”. While the received text moved to Scotland the Latin text was being developed as the sole authority of the dark and middle ages. This period fits nicely into your focus on doctrinal development and history.
Dark Ages (historiography), the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
European Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries CE), particularly:
European Early Middle Ages
Migration Period of c. 400 to 800 CE
Saeculum obscurum or “dark age” in the history of the papacy, running from 904 to 964
Note: For a discussion on the usage of the phrase “The Dark Ages” for the above periods, see Dark Ages (historiography). This era is covered in the post-classical era article for areas outside of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
By eliminating the Protestant history in your commentary, and especially ignoring the doctrine, form of church government, worship and discipline of the first and second reformation periods, it is obvious TO ME in reading your blog for several months that you are an independent and not presbyterian.
I suspect you reject establishmentarian principle?
I assume Bob agrees with the establishmentarian principle, but I don’t know. He might subscribe to it only in light of how Rome or the Church of England define it.
WALT–
You said: “I assume Bob agrees with the establishmentarian principle, but I don’t know. He might subscribe to it only in light of how Rome or the Church of England define it.”
Hey, this is America. We don’t have a state religion. I believe in the church that Jesus Christ established in Mathew 16 with all the authority that goes with it.
Bob said,
“Hey, this is America. We don’t have a state religion. I believe in the church that Jesus Christ established in Mathew 16 with all the authority that goes with it.”
I see. So establishmentarianism is a state sponsored religion? Do you think that Jesus Christ will establish a civil government or would you say He has nothing to do with civil government? You must believe it will be Islam that will rule the State and Jesus will rule the church?
Read your Bible Bob, please.
Hi, Walt,
I subscribe to chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession.
I’m not sure why you have seen “sarcasm and cynicism” in this week’s post. I applied the principle of reductio ad absuradam to show that Bryan Cross’s attempt to find Roman or Papal primacy in Ignatius is so fraught with presumption and circularity as to be wholly dismissed. Using the same methods Bryan did, I could prove the primacy of any bishopric in the early church. My successive claims to have “found” the strong central episcopate of Cross’s imagination in every church to which Ignatius wrote was merely an attempt to show the futility of trying to find Roman Catholicism in the Early Church. I suppose you could characterize that as “sarcasm” in the sense that my intent was to “mock” Cross’s predilection for finding Romanism behind every bush and under every rock in the patristic field. But cynicism? I don’t think my post was cynical at all, and I am not sure why you interpreted it as such.
You observed,
I don’t believe I have ever affirmed the “primacy” of the early church fathers. My use of them is solely to illustrate that Roman Catholicism thinks she owns the early church, when in fact, she despises it, for it testifies against her and her innovations.
If by “primacy” you simply mean that I focus on their chronological position in time rather than their authority, I focus on the period because I believe that it can be proven that Roman Catholicism did not exist in the first three centuries of the Church. I can hardly prove that by focusing on the Reformation. The evidence for such a claim must be contemporary to the claim.
You also observed,
I have not eliminated the protestant history from my commentary. It’s just that if I desire to show that the Early Church Fathers did not teach the immaculacy of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the primacy of the Pope, transubstantiation, veneration of images and relics, invocation of martyrs and saints, eucharistic adoration, baptismal regeneration, etc… then it simply does not suffice to say “The Early Church did not teach these things because they would be inconsistent with the glorious revolution.”
I do not ignore the protestant reformation. Nor do I ignore the second reformation. I believe that our eschatology must come from Scripture, and I believe Scripture points us to very specific times in the first four centuries A.D. (and the last four centuries B.C., by the way). The transition from iron legs to feet of Clay occurred in 69 A.D.. The transition from feet to toes took place in 293 A.D.. The emergence of the Little Horn took place in the late 4th century, as did “the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth” (Revelation 12:16). I believe it can be shown that the times, time and half a time of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 can be proven to have occurred from 396 – 1656 A.D., and will endeavor to provide evidence for this as I continue blogging. But not every reference to 1,260 must necessarily refer to the same period, and I will show from context that different times are in view in different situations (although I believe the period of the antichrist being able to “make” or “do” “forty and two months” (Revelation 13:5) coincides with the “time, and times, and half a time” that the Woman is nourished in the wilderness (Revelation 12:14)). I will also head back to the world of post-Alexandrian Hellenism in Asia Minor (323-88 B.C.), because the Scriptures have very, very much to say about the period. If I were to limit my discussion to protestant history, I would have to set aside 2,600 years of history (dating back to Nebuchadnezzar), and thus ignore some of the richest eschatological literature available to us (i.e., Daniel, as well as the portions of Revelation that point back to him). There is very much more left to say about the Greek period and the wars of succession, and I’ll get to it eventually.
In any case, the fact that my interests lie in the Greek period, the Ante- and immediately Post- Nicene church, should not be taken to mean that I ignore, or diminish, or neglect the Reformation. It’s just that the Reformation cannot inform the periods in view, and my eschatology is not wedded to the Reformation period. I believe, for example, that the first Seal was opened in 226 A.D.. The history of the Reformation does not bear on that at all.
That said, I am presbyterian, but I cannot deny that the Early Church was largely episcopal in its ecclesiology, though I don’t deny there were presbyterian inclinations. My point in responding to Cross as I have is to show that even as the emergent episcopacy of the Early Church laid the groundwork for the rise of a strong central episcopate, the language of the Early Church Fathers militated strongly against such. There was a collegiality and a fraternity among the churches in the different cities, and they were largely episcopal in their ecclesiology. I hope that my acknowledgment of this does not suggest to you that I think that because the Early Church was episcopal that the Church therefore ought to be episcopal. That is not my intent at all. I do not derive my ecclesiology from the Early Church Fathers.
I understand that you do not believe that I am Reformed, and based on your definition of Reformed, I agree with you. I just don’t have the same definition of Reformed.
In any case, you once wrote that you were disappointed to find that the only thing we appear to have in common is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that’s a pretty good foundation for fellowship.
Thanks, as always,
Tim
John Brown of Haddington: Scotch Burgher minister; b. at Carpow, near Abernethy (on the Frith of Tay, 6 m. s.e, of Perth), Perthshire, 1722; d. at Haddington (12 m. e. of Edinburgh) June 19, 1787. He was poor and self-taught, but acquired no small amount of learning; was a herd-boy, pedler, soldier, and school-teacher; studied theology under Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher of Glasgow; was licensed in 1750, and in 1751 settled as pastor of the Burgher branch of the Secession Church of Haddington, where he remained till his death, declining a call as professor of divinity in Queen’s College, N. J. After 1768 he was professor of theology to the Associate Synod. His yearly income from his church never exceeded 50, and his professorship had no salary; nevertheless he brought up a large family, gave freely in charity, and wrote books (which brought him no pecuniary profit) not only popular but valuable. They include: Two Short Catechisms Mutually Connected (Edinburgh, 1764); A Dictionary of the Bible (2 vols., 1769; revised ed., 1868); The Self-interpreting Bible (2 vols., 1778; often reprinted); and A Compendious History of the Church of England and of the Protestant Churches in Ireland and America (2 vols., Glasgow, 1784; new edition by Thomas Brown, Edinburgh, 1823).
Objection XI. “Men ought to be persuaded, not forced into faith and holiness. It is in vain to attempt rooting out corruptions, especially in religion, out of men’s outward behaviour unless they be first rooted out of their hearts.”
ANSW. (1.) It requires no small share of ignorance, impudence and fraud, to insinuate that the many thousands of Protestant advocates for the magistrates power to restrain gross heresy, blasphemy or idolatry, plead for the FORCING of men to faith and holiness, when they so harmoniously plead for the contrary.
(2) None ought to be forced into the faith and profession of the true religion, as hath been repeatedly declared, but all proper methods taken to render their compliance judicious and voluntary. Yet that will not infer, that no man ought to be restrained from, or even suitably and seasonably punished for, open and gross heresy, blasphemy or idolatry, which, while they publicly oppose, insult, and undermine the true religion,—produce terrible immoralities and disorders in churches and nations, and draw upon them the ruinous vengeance of God;—and far less will it infer, that magistrates, as vicegerents of God, ought, in his name and authority, to license a false religion, and promise men protection and encouragement in it. No magistrate hath power to force me to esteem, love, delight in, sympathize with, maintain, or even commend my neighbour. But he hath power to refuse me a warrant to calumniate, rob or murder him, and even to restrain or punish me for so doing. It would be absurd to attempt forcing of the British Jacobites, to believe and solemnly profess, that [King] George, not the Pretender is rightful Sovereign of this kingdom. But would it therefore be absurd, to restrain and punish them for publicly and insolently reviling him as an usurper,—or seducing their fellow subjects to dethrone him,—or for taking arms against him, or paying his just revenues to the Pretender?
(3) It is certain, that Christ, who hath power over the hearts of all men, curbed the external corruptions of the Jewish buyers and sellers in the temple, without first casting the corruptions out of their heart. And pray would you have all thieves, robbers, murderers, &c. to have full liberty in their courses, till their wickedness can be got rooted out of their heart?
The same year in which he was elected to the theological chair he preached and published a very powerful sermon on Religious Steadfastness, in which he dwells at considerable length on the religious state of the nation, and expresses violent apprehensions at the visible diffusion and advance of what he called latitudinarianism, and what we of this tolerant age would term liberality of religions sentiment. He likewise this year gave to the world one of the most elaborate, and certainly one of the most valuable of all his writings, the Dictionary of the Holy Bible. For popular use, it is unquestionably the most suitable work of the kind which yet exists, containing the results of most extensive and various reading both in the science and in the literature of Christianity, given without pretension or parade, and with a uniform reference to practical utility. …
….In the same year he was led, by a desire to contribute to the yet better instruction of his students, to form the design of composing a manual of church history on a general and comprehensive plan. It was to consist of three parts, “the first comprehending a general view of transactions relating to the church from the birth of our Saviour to the present time; the second containing more fully the histories of the Reformed British Churches in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America; the third to comprehend the histories of the Waldenses and the Protestant churches of Switzerland, France, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Hungary.”
Of these he completed the two former, his General History having been published in 1771, and his History of the British Churches in the beginning of 1784. These form very useful popular compends, though destitute of high historical authority. The history of the British Churches, as a work of original research, is much superior to the more general compilation, which is little more than an abridgment of Mosheim, written in a more fervid spirit than the latter is accustomed to display. Mr Brown’s next publication appeared in 1775, and was an edition of the metrical “Psalms, with notes exhibiting the connection, explaining the sense, and for directing and animating the devotion.”
In 1778 he gave to the world the great work on which his reputation is chiefly founded, “The Self-Interpreting Bible,” the object of which is to condense, within a manageable compass, all the information which an ordinary reader may find necessary for attaining an intelligent and practical knowledge of the sacred oracles. The first publication of this work was attended with considerable difficulties, in consequence of the claim of the king’s printers to the exclusive right of printing the authorized version of the Scriptures, whether accompanied or not with illustrative matter. This claim, however, having been set aside, the work was at length given to the world in 1778, and received with a high and gradually increasing and still un-exhausted approbation.
The same year he published a small tract entitled “the Oracles of Christ Abominations of Antichrist,” and four years after, his “Letters on Toleration:” strenuously maintaining the unlawfulness of tolerating by authority a false religion in a professedly Christian country. These publications originated in the universal sentiment of alarm entertained by the evangelical presbyterians of Scotland, both within and without the establishment, in consequence of the proposed abolition of the penal code against the Roman Catholics.
Dr. John Brown “of Haddington” (1722-1787)
Here is the clear difference between those who hold to the reformation attainments and doctrine, but yet are accused of “separating” from the “true, modern” Presbyterian church today who is filled with sin, toleration, backsliding, error, liberalism, Independency and pending judgment from God.
——————-
As the Dissenters hold no new opinions, with respect to either civil or religious matters; it is obvious that they cannot, with any propriety, be denominated a sectary, or new upstart society. If we carefully consider the well authenticated histories of our memorable Reformation, from 1638 to 1649; if we examine the printed acts of assembly, during that period, and also the acts of parliament, fixing the conditions of civil rule in the nation; if we candidly peruse the subordinate standards of the Church of Scotland, adapted at that time, as parts of the covenanted uniformity for the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland; if we peruse also the Informatory Vindication, Cloud of Witnesses, Plain Reasons, and other books of a similar description, and compare with all these, the Judicial Testimony of the Reformed Presbytery; the native conclusion will be, that the origin of the Old Presbyterian Dissenters, under the inspection of the said Presbytery, may be safely traced to the reformed and covenanted Church of Scotland, when she looked forth fair as the morning, at the year 1649. The Old Dissenters evidently stand on the same ground with that famous church; though they must confess themselves the unworthy descendants of such ancestors.
From the begun decline, in 1650, to the restoration of Charles II. in 1660, the dismal clouds of Cromwell’s usurpation, enthusiastic Independency, and public resolutions, together with sinfully-qualified tolerations and indulgences, rendered it extremely difficult to recognise the faithful witnesses, for the preceding reformation attainments. Yet, even during that period, there was a considerable number, whose unextinguished zeal for the reformation, influenced them to stand boldy forward, and display a banner for the truth. This necessary duty was performed by solemn remonstrances, and protestations, against the public resolutions, and other backslidings of the time.
From the Restoration, to the year 1688, when the Revolution took place, comprehending the twenty-eight years of the most inhuman and bloody persecution, the Church’s testimony for the word of Christ’s patience, was honourably supported, by the faithful preaching of the Gospel in the fields, after those ministers, who honestly avowed their attachment to the former reformation, had been silenced by public authority, and ejected from their parish churches; by solemn declarations and testimonies openly exhibited against the prevailing abominations of the time; by the Sufferers’ Informatory Vindication, in connection with Mr. Shields’ Hind let loose, and the Rev. Mr. Renwick’s Testimony against toleration, given in to some ministers in Edinburgh, a short while before his death; and by the earnest contendings and dying speeches of the martyrs, who sealed their steadfast adherence to the truths of Christ with their blood, shed on the scaffolds, and on the high places of the field.
From this noble race of martyrs, the line of succession was still preserved, at the memorable Revolution, in 1688. The last ordained minister, who, previous to this period, had gone out and in before them, saying, in his Master’s name, “This is the way, walk ye in it,” was the forementioned Rev. James Renwick; who suffered at the Grassmarket of Edinburgh, Feb. 17th, 1688. After his death, Mr. Alexander Shields, author of the Hind let loose, &c. and a preacher, who had laboured a considerable time along with Mr. Renwick, in supporting the same testimony, continued to preach among the people, who had lately lost their young champion, and much beloved pastor.
While matters were in this situation, a Mr. Thomas Linning, who had been formerly sent over to Holland, for finishing his education and receiving ordination, came home to Scotland. He, together with a Mr. William Boyd, who had also lately come from Holland, joined with Mr. Shields. These three together administered Gospel ordinances, for a few months longer, and renewed the covenants at Lesmahago, amongst the poor afflicted people above-mentioned. But when the General Assembly met at Edinburgh, in 1689, the three ministers, deserting their former flock, and relinquishing, in many respects at least, their former principles, gave in their accession to the judicatories of the Revolution church. Thus the people, who wished closely to adhere to the reformation attainments, were left as sheep without a shepherd.
Having, long before this time, formed themselves into praying societies, they still continued these; and had, at particular times, a general correspondence of all the societies together; in order to ascertain the state of matters through the body at large, and to cultivate a closer acquaintance with one another. In this very trying, and rather singular situation, without any change of sentiment, they steadfastly adhered to the very same principles, which were openly espoused, and solemnly ratified, by the covenanted Church of Scotland, in the times of her purest reformation; as can be clearly and fully proved, from their written deeds and declarations.
Thus they remained for about the space of sixteen years, till, in 1706, the Rev. John M’Millan, formerly minister of Balmaghie, in Galloway, having previous to this left the Established Church, acceded to them, and espoused their cause. Receiving an unanimous call to be their minister; he took the pastoral charge of them, and laboured amongst them, for many years after, with much acceptance; as hundreds of respectable characters have attested, both before and since his death.
After Mr. M’Millan had laboured long by himself, he and his people at last received the accession of the Rev. Thomas Nairn; who had been in connexion with the Secession church; but, for reasons which were published to the world, had dissented from them. Mr. M’Millan and he, with some ruling elders who had been regularly ordained before, and who held the same principles, formed and constituted a Presbytery, in the name of Christ, the alone King and Head of his Church, on the 1st of August, 1743, under the title of THE REFORMED PRESBYTERY. This title it still bears, not that they consider themselves as any better than other men, or as having, in their own persons, arrived at higher degrees of perfection: Such thoughts they never entertained; but purely for this reason, that it is at least their honest intention, faithfully to adhere to the whole of our reformation attainments, in both church and state, without knowingly dropping any part of these. On this account, it is presumed, they may justly enough be called the REFORMED, or REFORMATION-PRESBYTERY; while, in another point of view, they might, with equal propriety, be denominated, the DISSENTING PRESBYTERY.
A Mr. Alexander Marshall, who had formerly got the ordinary education of regular students in divinity, having passed the usual pieces of trial, with approbation, before the Reformed Presbytery, was by them licensed to preach the Gospel, in the month of April, 1744. He soon after received a call, was regularly ordained, and took his seat with the other two, as a co-presbyter. After this the Reformed Presbytery, from time to time, received small accessions to the number of both their ministers and people. Having obtained help of God, they continue to this day; witnessing none other things, than what many thousands, in the once famous and reformed Church of Scotland, have witnessed before them.
http://www.covenanter.org/RefPres/shortaccount.htm
Thank you, Tim! I appreciate this series very much,
Maria
WALT–
You said: “I see. So establishmentarianism is a state sponsored religion?”
es-tab-lish-men-tar-i-an
[ih-stab-lish-muh n-tair-ee-uh n]
adjective
1. of or relating to an established church, especially the Church of England, or the principle of state religion.
2. (often initial capital letter) of, relating to, or favoring a political or social establishment.
noun
3. a supporter or adherent of the principle of the establishment of a church by state law; an advocate of state religion.
4. (often initial capital letter) a person who belongs to or favors a political or social establishment.
Does the shoe fit?
You also said: “Do you think that Jesus Christ will establish a civil government or would you say He has nothing to do with civil government?”
Jesus established His church in the temporal world through His followers so that His work may be done in His stead. The stewardship of the Kingdom is done by those given His authority. Are there tares among the wheat? You betcha. Who are the tares and how are we to deal with them? Aye, there’s the rub. God ordains and crowns rulers to establish justice in the land. Tell me Walt, have you ever seen Jesus or the Father crown a king in person? I never have. Not even on TV. Even in the old testament He used His prophets to ordain kings. And He used those ordained authorities to reward or punish Israel. The same happens today.
And you went even so far as to say: ” You must believe it will be Islam that will rule the State and Jesus will rule the church?”
Looks to me like God is allowing it to happen for now in a large part of the world.
And you finally said: “Read your Bible Bob, please.”
I have, Walt. And when it’s all said and done with, we win! God is in control. Now, if you want to nitpick your way through life by “your interpretation” of the Bible, don’t be surprised if others don’t see it your way. And if “your interpretation” is not really yours but the “Covenanters interpretation”, how is that any different than Catholics abiding in the magisterium’s interpretation?
Just as the individual believer experiences ongoing sanctification over his lifetime here on earth, so also does the church experience ongoing reformation over her lifetime here on earth. And this reformation is to more and more unify the church, not to rend her asunder. She should, more and more, be one in doctrine and practice.
When a faithful standard (such as the Westminster Standards) are rightly recognized, approved, sworn and implemented by the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of a land or nation, it lawfully binds the people and churches in that land or nation, and the descended lands or nations thereof. If this is establishmentarianism, then yes, I would say the shoe fits.
This does not mean that the standards are infallible. But until such time as any particular disagreement is brought before the lawful church court (or the nearest equivalent if no such court exists at present) and duly overturned, then, unless it causes us to violate our properly-informed consciences, or to sin actually, it ought to be maintained and followed.
Bob wrote:
“1. of or relating to an established church, especially the Church of England, or the principle of state religion.”
“Does the shoe fit?”
Actually, no, it does not fit. You have just sourced Erastianism, not establishmentarianism. You obviously do not know the difference. Read the WCF….please.
“III. ***Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. ***
Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, ***without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest,*** in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every aprt of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.
And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession of belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
Bob said:
“Looks to me like God is allowing it to happen for now in a large part of the world.”
I did not ask anything about predestination or the sovereignty of God. I asked whether you believe that the Lord IS NOW or WILL in the future as King of King enforce his law civilly. It sounds like you believe Islam will be in control going forward. Is this what you believe?
Bob said:
“And if “your interpretation” is not really yours but the “Covenanters interpretation”, how is that any different than Catholics abiding in the magisterium’s interpretation?”
Very simple Bob. I did not think you were so dense. Really. Have you not been reading the blog from Tim all this time. Is it not clear that he is systematically proving that Rome has absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt in the mind of the thinking person, that Catholics grossly defy Scripture in favor of false, faulty and extremely misguided error and tradition?
Show me where Covenanters historically have violated Scripture in favor of false/fabled tradition of the Catholics?
Come on Bob, again…learn the Scripture first, then map your mind through history to see who is faithful and who is antichrist. If you don’t see this…you are blind by ignorance and self gratification to live in sin and foolishness.
Is that straight forward enough? Does it make you so angry Bob that like those who listened to the sermons of David Steele that they just wanted to rip off his head, and place it on the posts entering the city of Edinburgh as the previous Covenanters faced for speaking out against your foolish diatribe? Are my comments enough to make your hate me?
WALT–
You said; “Are my comments enough to make your hate me?”
That’s quite a chip on your shoulder. I have no desire to come knock it off, Walt.
You also said: “Very simple Bob. I did not think you were so dense. Really. Have you not been reading the blog from Tim all this time. Is it not clear that he is systematically proving that Rome has absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt in the mind of the thinking person, that Catholics grossly defy Scripture in favor of false, faulty and extremely misguided error and tradition?”
Tim has not proven anything of the sort. He has just put his spin on it. And just because you two agree to hate Rome doesn’t make me “misguided and dense”. It just shows that you are bigoted and condescending. It’s no wonder Catholics are not leaving the Church to come join the Covenanters.
Oh and by the way, the definition of establishmentarianism came from an online dictionary. Here is a little more information:
Antidisestablishmentarianism
æn.taɪˌdɪs.ɛsˌtæb.lɪʃ.məntˈɛ.ri.ənˌɪ.zm/)
is a political position that developed in 19th-century Britain in opposition to Liberal proposals for the disestablishment of the Church of England—meaning the removal of the Anglican Church’s status as the state church of England, Ireland, and Wales. The establishment was maintained in England, but in Ireland the Church of Ireland (Anglican) was disestablished in 1871. In Wales, four Church of England dioceses were disestablished in 1920 and became the Church in Wales.
Yeah. The shoe fits.
TIM–
You assume that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, right?
How do you reconcile that with his baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Jesus said “If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?”
The Catholic rite of baptism includes these sacred vows:
Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?
Parents & Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: And all his works?
Parents & Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: And all his empty promises?
Parents & Godparents: I do.
Next the celebrant asks for the threefold profession of faith from the parents and godparents.
Celebrant: Do you believe in the God the Father, almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
Parents & Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
Parents & Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
Parents & Godparents: I do.
Tim and Walt: Does your church recognize the validity of Roman Catholic baptism? Does the Westminster Confession allow re-baptism?
Until you can show where Satan is working against himself, your theory of the Pope being the Anti-christ holds no water. All the work that you are doing here is just leading people astray.
Bob, I am not merely assuming the papacy is antichrist. I seek to prove it with Scripture.
You asked,
Here are some true things the Devil is willing to say:
Just something to keep in mind. The devil does not deceive by outright rejection of the truth. The devil deceives by appearing to affirm the truth outwardly, while introducing error to those who will listen to him.
Regarding the baptism rite of Rome, getting people be outwardly professing, but inwardly full of unbelief, is hardly inconsistent with the Devil’s character:
How else would one be outwardly righteous but inwardly unclean but by professing the truth in order to secure a short term tactical advantage against the sheep. That’s why false prophets and false apostles say some true things. That’s why they put on sheep’s clothing. As you can see from Acts 16:17, the Devil can “appear” to be working against himself, but clearly even when he says “God is one” and “Thou art Christ,” and “These men … shew unto us the way,” he has designs that are not strictly evangelical, wouldn’t you agree?
The church I attend subscribes to the Westminster Confession which holds that baptism is to be administered but once (WCF 28.7). Thus they do not re-baptize converts from Roman Catholicism.
Thanks,
Tim
Show me in Scripture where Satan and/or his ministers baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Baptism is a Christian sacrament, not lip service. That is why the Westminster Confession does not allow re-baptism. If Satan were to baptize, he would actually be working against himself.
Try all you want to “prove” otherwise in other ways, but this is one hurdle you will not be able to surmount. The very nature of Satan prevents him from giving any glory to God. He’ll baptize in his own name, but he certainly won’t do it in God’s Name.
Bob,
An interesting comment. I have never claimed that Satan baptised anyone. I believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist of prophecy, and I believe that the Antichrist came “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). God sends upon his followers a “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). Deception and lying wonders, delusion and believing a lie suggest that the Antichrist says things that aren’t true, but the deception is to cloak his message in true-sounding language. As Paul warned, false teachers would arise “of your own selves,” “speaking perverse things,” “not sparing the flock” and “draw[ing] away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Peter warned of “false teachers among you,” “who privily [secretly, craftily] shall bring in damnable heresies” and “many shall follow their pernicious ways” (2 Peter 2:1-2).
Paul speaks of shepherds arising among the sheep, and Peter speaks of false teachers. Jesus warns of “false apostles” (Revelation 2:2), and congratulates the Ephesians because “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.”
These passages, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (“so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God”) are all suggestive of men of authority in teaching positions claiming some relation to, or privilege derived from, the apostles. Do you mean to suggest that nobody who administers Trinitarian baptism could ever be doing the work of the devil? If what you are saying is true, then simply saying the words of the Trinitarian baptism must be proof of orthodoxy.
And yet, it is the warning of Scripture that the Devil’s work is done by people who say one thing but do another, or say things that are true or partially true, yet are of their father the Devil.
Cain was “of that wicked one” (1 John 3:12), a child of the devil (1 John 3:10), and yet Cain had just “brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD” (Genesis 4:3). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, saying “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:44), and yet Jesus said the Jews should obey what these Pharisees say, for they sit in Moses’ seat (Matthew 23:2), and what they say is true insofar as it derives from the Scriptures: “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2). It wasn’t that the Devil’s children cannot say true things. It’s that they say things in hypocrisy, and such hypocrisy is damnable. Remember that Scripture says the devil’s children lie, because they are of their father, who is the father of lies and that they murder because they are of their father, who is a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).
And yet these children of the devil are able to say true things. It seems to me that you are saying that anyone who says anything true must not be a child of the devil—otherwise the devil is working against himself. But it is clear from the Scriptures that the devil says many true things, and that is part of his deception. That is part of the lie. That is part of the crafty way he insinuates himself into the flock in order to lead the sheep astray. The delusion that God sends upon men who follow him is to think that because he says some true things, he must be wholly true.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “I have never claimed that Satan baptised anyone.”
I never said you did. You are careful not to. But you are trying to prove that someone who does baptize in the Name of God is the Anti-christ. It is spiritually impossible.
You also said: “It seems to me that you are saying that anyone who says anything true must not be a child of the devil—otherwise the devil is working against himself. ”
You are the one talking about lip service. I am talking about sacramental action. There is a big difference.
And you seem to say that anyone who speaks evil is a child of the devil. Hmmmm…..that makes practically everyone anti-Christ. Heresies popped up all over the early church. There were false teachers and false apostles all over the early church–Judaizers, gnostics, the Nicolatians, the Arians, chilians, Pelagians, etc, etc. All of these things have been found anathema in the early church. Did these arise from among the bretheren? They most certainly did. Just like they were prophesied. Do you consider them THE,/strong> Anti-Christ? No, you don’t. You have decided to single out the Bishop of Rome. Not the Patriarch of Constantinople. Not the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria. Not the Supreme Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge. Not the Ayatollah Khomeini. Just the Pope.
Like I said, you have an insurmountable obstacle in your way, unless you can prove by scripture that the Anti-Christ will act contrary to his nature. His nature is deception. Baptism is pure love.
Bob, your claim that it is spiritually impossible for “someone who does baptize in the Name of God” to be “Anti-christ” is untenable.
Jesus said,
To these, Jesus will respond, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23).
Doing something in God’s name is not proof of orthodoxy or of faith. It is simply proof of claiming to do something in God’s name.
You have said that Baptism is “pure love,” but you might also say that the Gospel is “pure love,” too. And yet the demoniac following Paul said, “These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17).
It is also true that “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife” (Philippians 1:15).
So it is possible to claim to cast out devil’s in Jesus’ name, and yet be a worker of iniquity, and to say that we should listen to the apostles, and yet be a demoniac, and preach Christ but for illicit motives. And yet you think that Roman Catholicism cannot be antichrist because she baptizes in the name of the Trinity. Your position, as I said, is untenable.
You also said,
I have not singled anyone out that the Scripture does not single out. The Scriptures indeed warn of false teachers introducing damnable heresies. They also warn of a Wicked One, the man of sin, the son of perdition,
You seem to think that because not all false teachers are antichrist, then no false teachers are antichrist. You must admit that while the Scriptures say there will be many false teachers, there is one in particular that gets a great deal of attention, and he is identified by very specific attributes. Who of the men you mentioned has claimed to be the head of the Christian church, infallible, the vicar of Christ on earth, and has an image (the Eucharist) that comes to life and has the power to speak, has a false prophet (the apparitions of Mary) that has made the fire of heaven come down to earth in the sight of men, commands men to set up the image that comes to life and has the power of speech, and also arose among the fragments of the Roman Empire, shared authority with them for a time, then ruled over them all, has a name (Vicarius Filii Dei) that adds up to 666, etc…, etc…, etc…
You may not agree with my assessment, but I think your claim that I “have decided to single out the Bishop of Rome” suggests that I just didn’t like him, and then decided to find things to justify my dislike. Not that it matters, but I will tell you that I arrived at the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is antichrist while I was still a dispensationalist expecting a future antichrist. I was persuaded of his identity by the Scriptures, and had to be talked into it. I did not “single out the Bishop of Rome.” The Scripture singles out the papacy, and is so precise in its identification of him that his identity, not only as an enemy of the gospel, but the antagonist of which we were to be especially wary, is incontrovertible.
It is also true that God will send upon men a “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
I understand that you believe that I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit and have committed the unpardonable sin and have denied the Son of God before men, and that it is I, not you, who am under a strong delusion, so you can understand that I will not be swayed. Nor do I expect you to be. Nevertheless, I would encourage you to make your case from Scripture. Your statements that “baptism is pure love” and that it is “spiritually impossible” for Antichrist to baptize in the Name of God are decidedly unscriptural.
You’re always welcome here.
Tim
Thx for explaining these things so clearly Tim.
TIM–
You said: ““In like manner,, and the presbyters as the let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father and the presbyters as sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Trallians, chapter 3)
No other assembly of presbyters in any other city is described this way in his letters. Apart from the leaders of Tralles—the very “sanhedrin of God”—there is no Church? Maybe Tralles was to be that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep. Their presbyters were as the Sanhedrin “and the assembly of the apostles.” There can be no higher ecclesiastical authority on earth than “the Sanhedrin of God.” All hail Tralles, the strong central episcopate of the universal church! (Such an approach to the text is folly, but it is the approach Bryan Cross uses.)”
Right on! And notice that Ignatius said ” let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father “. WOW! He is placing the Bishop of Tralles in the place of Jesus Christ! That’s what Kevin says the Pope does–RAISING HIMSELF UP IN THE PLACE OF GOD! And Ignatius is way before the “Rise of the Roman Empire”.
That should read “the rise of Roman Catholicism”
TIM–
You said: “Bob, your claim that it is spiritually impossible for “someone who does baptize in the Name of God” to be “Anti-christ” is untenable.”
Nice try. You trying to make it say what it doesn’t say.
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matthew 7:22)
To these, Jesus will respond, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23).
It’s still only lip service. Jesus hears what they say. Yet He knows their heart. Nowhere does any of these passages that you quote say anything about baptism. Baptism is the door to the Kingdom of Heaven. Baptism is dying with Christ to destroy our death, and rising with Christ to restore our life. It is pure love. That is not the work of anti-Christ. Satan does not condone the work that defeats himself.
Show me in scripture where the Anti-Christ does work to lead them to Christ.
You also said: “Not that it matters, but I will tell you that I arrived at the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is antichrist while I was still a dispensationalist expecting a future antichrist. I was persuaded of his identity by the Scriptures, and had to be talked into it. ”
I suspected as much. Yes it matters quite a bit. At least I know how you got that way.
Bob, you observed,
That is true. But these passages have a lot to say about doing things in the Lord’s name, which was your original objection:
Thus, I provided citations of Scripture with workers of iniquity claiming to have done things in Jesus’ name. Yes, it is possible to do things in God’s Name, and yet be a “worker of iniquity.” Your statement that “It’s still only lip service” is just the point. It is possible for Antichrist to give lip service, and lip service is exactly what Antichrist gives. And no, Baptism is NOT the door to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is:
You continued,
I have already showed you Scriptures that indicate that Satan’s ministers can masquerade as ministers of righteousness.
I have also showed you Scriptures where Satan’s ministers preach Christ for envy and strife, and not of good will (Philippians 1:15). I have also showed you Scriptures where Satan’s ministers implore people to listen to Paul and his company, for “These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17).
As I have said before, Satan will do all these things for the sake of a short term tactical advantage. That’s what “lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9), “deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), “feigned words” (2 Peter 3:2), and damnable heresies introduced “privily” or craftily (2 Peter 2:1) are all about. Antichrist does not have his way with people by professing to be precisely what he is. He has his way with people by pretending to be precisely what he is not. Satan doesn’t care if the Pope baptizes the whole world as long as the result is that the whole world trusts in its baptism as “the door” for its salvation instead of trusting God’s Son as “the door.”
Your defense of Rome essentially reduces to, “He can’t be a wolf in sheep’s clothing because he’s wearing sheep’s clothing, and sheep’s clothing is worn by sheep.”
Well, sheep’s clothing is also worn by wolves preying on the sheep.
I’m not sure I understand your last statement:
You seem to be criticizing me for changing my beliefs based on evidence provided to me from the Scriptures. What “way” did I “get,” and how did I “get that way”? Is there something wrong with reading the Scriptures and changing one’s beliefs to conform to them?
Thanks,
Tim
“who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, ”
When has the Bishop of Rome done this?
“so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”
When has the Bishop of Rome done this? What Temple of God? When and how did he display himself as beingGod?
http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html
Bob,
You asked
“When has the Bishop of Rome done this?”
God’s Word is self-attesting. God says of Himself, “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14).
The Pope says his words are self-attesting: “and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus, Chapter IV)
God sent His Son to be Bishop of Souls, pastor of the whole Church (1 Peter 2:25). Rome claims this for the pope:
Jesus sent His Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth (John 16:13), yet Rome believes and teaches that Jesus sent the Popes to do that::
Thus, the Pope claims for himself what belongs to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit alone. He has in effect elevated himself to the position of God, and has even elevated himself above Him.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Thus, the Pope claims for himself what belongs to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit alone.”
Who taught you that?
“In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ”
Mat 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Jhn 20:21ff
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
Luk 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.
Mat 28:18ff
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Mat 9:8
But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
What do you think Jesus was doing when He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing? What do you think Jesus was doing when he gave them that power of the Holy Spirit? Do you think the Father would disapprove of His son giving His authority to men like these? After all, didn’t you say it belongs to Them and Them alone?
I don’t think so, Tim.
TIM–
You said: “He has in effect elevated himself to the position of God, and has even elevated himself above Him.”
How can claiming the power of the Keys to the Kingdom elevate one above God? Where has the Pope claimed to be above God? That makes no sense.
Again, who taught you that?
Bob, I want to make sure I understand correctly. It it your belief that the “the power of the Keys to the Kingdom” includes with it
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
You wrote:
“I don’t believe I have ever affirmed the “primacy” of the early church fathers.”
I should have more properly said “primary source documents”. My mistake.
You said, “In any case, the fact that my interests lie in the Greek period, the Ante- and immediately Post- Nicene church, should not be taken to mean that I ignore, or diminish, or neglect the Reformation.”
Disagree. There is far more than historical significance in the writings of the reformers than you appear to understand. I know this by your personal testimony of a PCA adherent and positions you take against Presbyterian, reformed teachings.
You said, “I understand that you do not believe that I am Reformed, and based on your definition of Reformed, I agree with you. I just don’t have the same definition of Reformed.”
Agreed.
You said, “In any case, you once wrote that you were disappointed to find that the only thing we appear to have in common is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that’s a pretty good foundation for fellowship.”
Disagree. This would violate the reformed and biblical doctrine of familiar fellowship, and should you be a minister it would violate my conscience to hear you preach in person due to violation of the reformed and biblical doctrine of occasional hearing. Certainly you will never find these Biblical principles contained in the early church, nor the modern PCA churches. They did not exist in your period of focus in Greek literature, nor in Babylonian literature or periods of enlightenment, nor in your the periods where the Bible itself was ignored in the original languages being replace by Rome and the Latin texts.
I don’t intend to raise these issues again knowing more about your theological presuppositions to the reformers and the period of reformation. I have no intention to offend you, and certainly with a man of your extraordinary gifts the time to challenge you on your beliefs. There is no doubt in my mind dealing with past ministers and other theological gifted men that once they dig in their heels we can ignore them until the Holy Spirit comes along and knocks them off their horse.
The incredible and rich doctrines developed in the reformation periods are not only ignored, but hated by many who claim to be reformed today. The flood of false doctrines today, and the rejection of biblical attainments in church history are common place. Presbyterians in our age are really independents and overturn every established doctrine in favor of every wind of doctrine it seems. Most of my friends today either came out of the PCA, OPC or RPCNA, Baptist or Roman Catholic churches….but most of the theological experts remain to play significant roles they don’t get when their words and actions are compared with the reformers. I get it…today it is about planting the seeds for super stardom and mega stardom in the Romish or Protestant churches.
Thanks, Walt. I appreciate your candor. I take no offense at it, and I appreciate your comments here.
Tim