Rome and Finished Revelation

[Dr. Walter]

You cannot simply dismiss inspired testimonies by resorting to uninspired opinions of men.

It only makes a mockery of Matthew 16:18 if Rome is supposed to be the church intended. It is obvious to me that is impossible as Rome has no relationship to the doctrine spelled out in the book of Romans.

The advocates of the universal invisible church theory apply Matthew 16:18 to true believers in all ages. My position is that the true churches of Christ were condemned by the worldly state church as "heretics" and their writings destroyed except for the glosses found in what Rome preserved.

However, this thread is not designed to deal with ecclesiology but with biblical evidence that there is no such thing as sacred tradition. Sacred tradition and apostolic oral teaching are not one and the same. Oral teachings by the apostles existed contemporary with the apostles and were superseded by the completion of the scriptures - Isa. 8:16,20

You've raised two objections to the idea of Sacred Tradition on this thread, one in the last post. These are both good arguments and therefore deserve ventilation here:-

• “What if the consensus patri ie: the doctrinal and liturgical consensus of the ECFs to which Vincent alludes in his Commonitory above, quite simply got it wrong? After all, these were just men, they were fallible like you or me, and they could have made mistakes – in no way should their opinions and practices be elevated to the same status as Scripture.” First of all, as I have already said, I am neither claiming infallibility for the early Church, nor am I seeking to raise her doctrines and practices to the level of Scripture. The main trouble with this objection, though, is that it makes a mockery of Jesus’ promise to build His Church and the gates of Hades not prevailing in Matt 16:18-19, it makes Him out to be a liar when He promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth in John 16:13 and teach them all things in John 14:26, and it negates Paul’s statement in I Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Furthermore, many of the Early Church Fathers whose writings we have were discipled by, and in some cases appointed by, the Apostles: for example, Ignatius (who wrote several letters which we have) was a disciple of John and appointed by him Bishop of Antioch; his writings date from within a decade of the Apostle’s death. Clement of Rome was the third successor to that Bishopric after the Apostle Peter and wrote c.85AD, John was still alive and before the NT was fully completed. As such, they were far, far better-qualified to interpret the portions of the NT penned by those Apostles than we are today.
• “Does not Apostolic Tradition amount to the same as ‘the traditions of men’ which Jesus was so quick to condemn in Mark 7?” That would indeed be a valid objection if the two were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

 

[Dr. Walter]

OK, so where's the 'oral teaching' given to Timothy by Paul contained in the NT?

It is contained in the bulk of all of his epistles and in the epistles written by other apostles after Paul's death.

 

[glfredrick]

It is contained in the bulk of all of his epistles and in the epistles written by other apostles after Paul's death.

Correction... It is WRITTEN DOWN in the bulk of the epistles... :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

:thumbs::thumbs: good correction!

Correction... It is WRITTEN DOWN in the bulk of the epistles... :thumbs:

 

[Matt Black]

You cannot simply dismiss inspired testimonies by resorting to uninspired opinions of men.

I'm not - my contention is that the so-called 'uninspired' men were inspired by the Holy Spirit - unless you're saying He's been sleeping for nearly 2000 years?

It only makes a mockery of Matthew 16:18 if Rome is supposed to be the church intended. It is obvious to me that is impossible as Rome has no relationship to the doctrine spelled out in the book of Romans.

So which church are we talking , then- Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, another location? Be specific

The advocates of the universal invisible church theory apply Matthew 16:18 to true believers in all ages. My position is that the true churches of Christ were condemned by the worldly state church as "heretics" and their writings destroyed except for the glosses found in what Rome preserved.

Evidence, please.

However, this thread is not designed to deal with ecclesiology

Then why raise it?

 

[Matt Black]

It is contained in the bulk of all of his epistles and in the epistles written by other apostles after Paul's death.

Specifically which doctrines? And where in those epistles - chapter and verse please.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not - my contention is that the so-called 'uninspired' men were inspired by the Holy Spirit - unless you're saying He's been sleeping for nearly 2000 years?

Inspiration refers to the scriptures not to the instruments used to convey scriptures. It is the words that are God breathed not the persons.

So which church are we talking , then- Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, another location? Be specific[/QUOTE

Matthew 28:19-20 is the modus operandi for reproducing churches after their own kind. It is not that any particular historical church is perpetuated until the end of the age but rather it reproduces churches of like faith and order who do the same until the end of the age so that there are always New Testament churches present in every generation until the end of the age. I have posted a thread on the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 and spell it out in greater detail. If interested look at that thread.

Then why raise it?

I didn't - you did! You raised the question of church perpetuity and Matthew 16:18. I simply responded.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Specifically which doctrines? And where in those epistles - chapter and verse please.

First, you are guessing at the content of the oral traditions because you don't know what the content was. Paul explicitly tells the church at Ephesus that he teaches the same doctrine in every place he goes. That doctrine is spelled out in his epistles. If the doctrine of a particular denomination cannot be found in the Old and New Testaments it is because it is not Biblical and therefore not of God but of men.

What he taught Timothy is what he taught in EVERY PLACE and in EVERY CHURCH. What he taught Titus is what he taught Timothy:

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

What he taught Titus by oral teaching was the body of doctrine he called "the faith" or "the doctrine" which was taught in every church consistently (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:7; 2 Thes. 2:15; etc.).

This oral body of doctrine IS what written in the New Testament.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I can think of at least one instance in which 'Bible-believing' Protestants--and/or 'Baptists' (for those Baptists who vigorously deny that they are Protestant)--accept the authority of the consensus patri and that is in the Canon of the New Testament. The New Testament did not come with it's own 'Table of Contents' (nor did the OT for that matter), and the first list we have that exactly matches our 27 book NT dates from AD 367 found in Athanasius's Festal Letter. Before that, the closest was in the Council of Laodicea which listed 26 books (ie no Revelation of John). After AD 367, we have 'Pope' Damasus in 382 listing the same books (I think--he may have left out Hebrews) and then the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which for all practical purposes 'ratified' this list. Since that time, practically all Western Christians (until Luther, it seems) accept the same 27 book list, as do most Eastern Christians (the Assyrians accept less; the Ethiopians, a few more). There is a little more divergence, of course, in the acceptance of the OT Deuterocanon (ie the additional books found in the LXX).

One could also argue that most 'bible believing' Protestant/Baptists (consciously or not) accept the authority of the first four General Councils in their Trinitarian and Christological teaching/definitions at least.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I can think of at least one instance in which 'Bible-believing' Protestants--and/or 'Baptists' (for those Baptists who vigorously deny that they are Protestant)--accept the authority of the consensus patri and that is in the Canon of the New Testament. The New Testament did not come with it's own 'Table of Contents' (nor did the OT for that matter), and the first list we have that exactly matches our 27 book NT dates from AD 367 found in Athanasius's Festal Letter. Before that, the closest was in the Council of Laodicea which listed 26 books (ie no Revelation of John). After AD 367, we have 'Pope' Damasus in 382 listing the same books (I think--he may have left out Hebrews) and then the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which for all practical purposes 'ratified' this list. Since that time, practically all Western Christians (until Luther, it seems) accept the same 27 book list, as do most Eastern Christians (the Assyrians accept less; the Ethiopians, a few more). There is a little more divergence, of course, in the acceptance of the OT Deuterocanon (ie the additional books found in the LXX).

One could also argue that most 'bible believing' Protestant/Baptists (consciously or not) accept the authority of the first four General Councils in their Trinitarian and Christological teaching/definitions at least.

Since I reject the vast amount of Ante-Nicene history as legitimate church history but rather view it as the history of the apostate churches, therefore I reject Rome's view of canonization of scriptures. I believe New Testament churches have always been the custodians of the scriptuers and therefore at not point in time were they ever without what was currently written and deposited into the hands of the churches.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Since I reject the vast amount of Ante-Nicene history as legitimate church history but rather view it as the history of the apostate churches, therefore I reject Rome's view of canonization of scriptures. I believe New Testament churches have always been the custodians of the scriptuers and therefore at not point in time were they ever without what was currently written and deposited into the hands of the churches.

It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts. Otherwise, what is your actual evidence that these alleged 'non-apostate Ante-Nicene churches' (I'm assuming you mean, 'baptistic') existed, let alone that they held to the exact same 27 book NT held to by (what you describe as 'apostate') wider Church? Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries? What were the names of their leaders? Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

 

[quantumfaith]

It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts. Otherwise, what is your actual evidence that these alleged 'non-apostate Ante-Nicene churches' (I'm assuming you mean, 'baptistic') existed, let alone that they held to the exact same 27 book NT held to by (what you describe as 'apostate') wider Church? Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries? What were the names of their leaders? Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

Excellent point DT: It pains some so much to think that our Catholic "brothers in Christ" had anything to do with what we know today as our scriptural canon. Even despite any doctrinal differences big or small.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts. Otherwise, what is your actual evidence that these alleged 'non-apostate Ante-Nicene churches' (I'm assuming you mean, 'baptistic') existed, let alone that they held to the exact same 27 book NT held to by (what you describe as 'apostate') wider Church? Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries? What were the names of their leaders? Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

Secular church history is (1) Uninspired and therefore not free from bias or totally trustworthy; (2) Incomplete and therefore limited and often (3) inaccurate and many times intentionally so.

What we have is only what Roman monk historians chose to perserve - period!

I am sure you are aware of many studies by Protestant historians, much less, Baptist historians who have surveyed the inconsistencies found in Monkish histories concerning those who were deemed "heretics" by Rome. I don't think you need a list of books from me to remind you of this perspective of history.

The Roman Catholic response is the same toward these respected historians as it is to those it deemed as heretics - ridicule!

1. Foxes Book of Martyrs
2. Van Braught's Martys Mirror
3. Robinson's Ecclesiastical Researches
4. Mosheim's church history
5. Various histories and early confessions of faith by the Valdenses
6. Edward Gibbons decline and fall of Rome
7. etc., etc.

The presumption of every Roman Catholic about their own preserved church history is exactly the same as their presumption of sacrad tradition - unquestioned loyalty and ridicule to any who challenge it's authenticity and/or accuracy.

There is sufficient evidence that both the older Latin Vulgate and old syric translation presented (lacking four books) were as early as A.D. 150. However, I think it is silly to presume that the apostles failed to leave the churches without the epistles they had written as even Col. 4:16 commands the churches to share the written epistles of Paul. The churches had all four gospels and all the epistles in hand by the death of John and they were circulating among the churches and churches were making their own copies. It is silly, because where do you think the material for canonization would come from - the heathen???? Hence, the churches had the full New Testament in their possession from the first century.

 

[quantumfaith]

C. AD 51-125:
The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
C. AD 140:
Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.
C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
AD 367:
The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
AD 904:
Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.
AD 1442:
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
AD 1536:
In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.
AD 1546:
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Where did you draw this information? From the Ante-Nicene account???? This is the preserved history of the roots and progress of apostacy. The dating of these other writings is a debated question and I believe you probably already know that. Marcion was a devoted Gnostic. There is no legitimate history cited as far as I am concerned because you are citing only the history preserved by Rome. The earliest writings have been tampered with as there are long versus short versions.

The book of Romans, written to the orthodox apostolic church demonstrates clearly that there were several churches in Rome (Rom. 16) and one of them went into apostasy as the Roman church in the later developing Ante-Nicene account bears no resemblance to the theology of the book of Romans.

C. AD 51-125:
The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
C. AD 140:
Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.
C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
AD 367:
The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
AD 904:
Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.
AD 1442:
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
AD 1536:
In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.
AD 1546:
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts. Otherwise, what is your actual evidence that these alleged 'non-apostate Ante-Nicene churches' (I'm assuming you mean, 'baptistic') existed, let alone that they held to the exact same 27 book NT held to by (what you describe as 'apostate') wider Church? Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries? What were the names of their leaders? Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

The Apostolic Fathers have long versus shorter version demonstrating early corruption of the so-called Anti-Nicene history. Anyone who has read much (and I have) the Ante-Nicene Fathers finds corruptions, contradictions and perversions of New Testament scriptures by these pre-Roman Catholic apostates.

We also find those called heretics, but are usually characterized by the personality quirks and extremes of one individual but are large movements continuing into the seventh centuries moving geographically from one place to another because of persecution by the unorthodox liberal churches eventually to become the Romans Catholic Church and then split into the Western and Easter Catholic churches.

Since I do not accept Ante-Nicene history as valid history of the true New Testament churches and their beliefs and since I do accept many (not all) of those identified as "heretics" who were completely characterized by essentic beliefs and behaviors attributed to them by the dominate apostate church, and usually due to the characterization of one individual transferred to the whole movement, then, I cannot make any sustained argument from a history that I question as valid.

However, I make my argument based upon Biblical characteristics of the true churches of Christ and the Bible's anticipated and prophesied character and conditions true churches would encounter after the apostolic age.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What you and QF have done is the reverse of how the subject should be handled and that is attempting to validate and define inspired scripture from the standpoint of uninspired secular church history. That is the modus operandi of Rome but not of Bible believing Christians.

You could not overthrow my Biblical exegesis with valid hermeneutics so you proceeded to the only foundation that Rome stands on to validate itself - tradition and now your working from an UNINSPIRED position to force scripture into a secular uninspired interpretative mold.

I refuse to play that game as I refuse to define inspired teaching by uninspired historical writings. Instead, I will contend by the use of inspired writings that the secular history is inaccurate and incompetent as it is opposed to the teaching of inspired scriptures.

That your basis of uninspired resources are inaccurate precisely because they contradict the scriptures own testimony and because they contradict the very doctrines of scripture.

 

[tinytim]

Dr. Walter.. no disrespect here, but it seems to me that you want the readers of this thread to trust your imagination (history not from Rome) more than accepted history.

Please show proof of your view of history. I was raised more or less Landmark, and have always wanted to see proof of history apart from Rome. If you know where this is, please share.

Other wise, it looks like your hate for Rome is forcing you to make up history.

 

[quantumfaith]

What you and QF have done is the reverse of how the subject should be handled and that is attempting to validate and define inspired scripture from the standpoint of uninspired secular church history. That is the modus operandi of Rome but not of Bible believing Christians.

You could not overthrow my Biblical exegesis with valid hermeneutics so you proceeded to the only foundation that Rome stands on to validate itself - tradition and now your working from an UNINSPIRED position to force scripture into a secular uninspired interpretative mold.

I refuse to play that game as I refuse to define inspired teaching by uninspired historical writings. Instead, I will contend by the use of inspired writings that the secular history is inaccurate and incompetent as it is opposed to the teaching of inspired scriptures.

That your basis of uninspired resources are inaccurate precisely because they contradict the scriptures own testimony and because they contradict the very doctrines of scripture.

The certainty of history is inversely proportional to what we know about it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The certainty of history is inversely proportional to what we know about it.

History is just like watching the nightly news. Depending on what news station you watch will determine what news you get and what spin you get on the news.

History is like what textbook you get in school. Are you getting a revisionist view point or are you actually getting the historical facts?

Rome has controlled the preservation and writing of history in regard to the frist nine centuries. They have practiced the same burnt earth policy that secular Rome practiced against its enemies. Secular Rome would come into a people subdue them, destroy their culture, their history and force Roman culture upon them and Romanize them. This was the practice of religious Rome as well.

Anyone can read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and immediately run into proof of tampering with the earliest materials! Long verus short versions. Anyone can progress in the Ante-Nicene Fathers and read the silliest most superstitutions nonsense immaginable and yet we are supposed to open our mouth and believe that we are reading factual history.

I have already listed several historians who have researched the inconsistencies in what Rome has preserved and have provided evidence that some of the so-called "heretics" simply rejected the Roman veiws of the church, sacraments, preisthood, images, claim of apostolic succession, etc and were characterized by one Roman monkish historian as evil, bizzare, hateful and ungodly people and yet by another Roman monkish historian as a godly, devout, humble God fearing people who simply took issue with Roman doctrine and practice. The Paulicians were such a people. The Waldenses were such a people. I believe the Montanists, Novationists and Donatists were such a people who were intentional characterized by one or two persons and the name of those persons attached to smear them.

However, the bottom line is this - Can Rome be trusted to accurately and objectively report the true characteristics of those it hated sufficiently to kill????

There are scores of competent historians who have researched the contradictions between monkish historians and see a completely different view of church history.