Rome and Finished Revelation

[glfredrick]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0945241097/?tag=baptis04-20

Great resource for the debate over Greek pagan influences in the writing of Scripture. Debunks much mythology over Gnostic and other Greek influences, most of which came a hundred or more years after the canon was settled and circulated.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Walter,

Before responding to your post, let my preface my response (1) first by stating that I am NOT a Roman Catholic and (2) second by making some observations based on previous debates on this topic.

Based on the arguments or booklets (ie 'Trail of Blood') I've read from folks defending your same point of view, I have observed the following implicit thought process at work:
(A) the would be theologian/bible teacher is convinced that his interpretation(s) of Scriptures is the correct one.
(B) the would be theologian/bible teacher labels those who disagree with aforementioned interpretation(s) as "heretics" and/or "apostates".
(C) the would be theologian/bible teacher looks by at early Church history (particular the time of Constantine if not the ante-Nicene period), doesn't see his particular aforementioned interpretation(s) taught or defended, scratches his head and makes the following three conclusions--
(i) the so-called 'Christian fathers' who wrote during this period were actually just 'apostates' or 'heretics'.
(ii) 'real Christians' (ie those who shared the would be theologian/bible teacher's aforementioned interpretation(s)) must have co-existed in time along with the 'apostates' despite the lack of historical evidence.
(iii) the reason we don't have records of the existence of the 'real Christians' is that the 'apostate Christians' (especially the nascent Roman Catholic Church) purposefully wiped out all records of their existence.

(This of course is the recipe for Historical Revisionism.)

Examples of point (iii) can be found in these two comments of yours:

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!

What is problematic, particularly regarding the second of these comments is that if it is true, we have a fantastical situation in which 'Roman monk historians':
(1) chose to preserve, either directly (ie by not 'burning' the primary source) or indirectly (ie by extensively quoting their sources) works of heretics with whom they strenously disagreed and denounced--ex: Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Celsus, etc.
(2) apparently did a poor job of trying to wipe out non-canonical gospels (eg. Thomas, Mary, Philip, Judas, etc), Acts, and Epistles (purportedly written by apostles, but recognized as heretical) as we still have abundant evidence of these non-catholic writings.
(3) left intact copious writings from the Fathers that would seem to disagree with later papal developments/claims as well as disagreeing with other peculiar Roman dogmas (eg, the immaculate conception); ...and yet...
(4) not only failed to mention the existence of otherwise orthodox 'baptistic' type churches, but also managed to wipe out all alleged primary sources of these imagined 'baptistic' believers.

What your historically revisionistic view thus amounts to is quite a bit of special pleading.

You then offered some comments along the same lines

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.

Many of these 'historians' share the same thought processes outlined above and thus commit the same fallacies as you.

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

In the absence of actual evidence from primary sources, you resort to ad hominem--particularly raising the 'Roman Catholic' bogeyman.

I'll remind you again that I am NOT a Roman Catholic. I have profound disagreements with certain aspects of Roman dogma and papal claims, disagreements that are based on the same historical data that you describe as being preserved by the 'apostate Roman monk historians'(!). As I said regarding the question of the NT canon:

It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts

At any rate I had asked several questions in post 31 of this thread about the "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?

To which you gave no specific response at all. Instead you gave a general listing of secondary sources which I suppose you believe support your view--

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.

If you have specific answers to my questions in the bolded comment above, please provide them with actual evidence that we can check from PRIMARY sources.
(1) Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
(2) What were the names of their leaders?
(3) Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

I guess the following is the closest you came to a specific answer:

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.

Okay--what is that 'sufficient evidence'? Which 2nd (or 3rd) century writer/writing listed the contents of the Old Latin or Syriac NT? -OR- Which manuscript from the 2nd or 3rd century supports your claim?

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.

That's a red herring. I never claimed the apostles failed to leave the churches with their epistles nor that they did not instruct the churches to share them.

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.

Another red herring. I don't disagree with this, if you mean the Church collectively had the four gospels and epistles by the time John died, as all NT writings were indeed written by then. I just want to know where is your actual PROOF that each local church possessed all 27 of the NT writings by the time John died (or at any other time in the 2nd or 3rd century)? And what is your PROOF that any local church from this time knew that these 27 books, and these alone, were the NT canon?

It is silly, because where do you think the material for canonization would come from - the heathen????

Another non-sequiter.

Hence, the churches had the full New Testament in their possession from the first century.

Again, where is your actual proof, in terms of specific answers to the questions listed above?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Walter,

Before responding to your post, let my preface my response (1) first by stating that I am NOT a Roman Catholic and (2) second by making some observations based on previous debates on this topic.

Based on the arguments or booklets (ie 'Trail of Blood') I've read from folks defending your same point of view, I have observed the following implicit thought process at work:
(A) the would be theologian/bible teacher is convinced that his interpretation(s) of Scriptures is the correct one.
(B) the would be theologian/bible teacher labels those who disagree with aforementioned interpretation(s) as "heretics" and/or "apostates".
(C) the would be theologian/bible teacher looks by at early Church history (particular the time of Constantine if not the ante-Nicene period), doesn't see his particular aforementioned interpretation(s) taught or defended, scratches his head and makes the following three conclusions--
(i) the so-called 'Christian fathers' who wrote during this period were actually just 'apostates' or 'heretics'.
(ii) 'real Christians' (ie those who shared the would be theologian/bible teacher's aforementioned interpretation(s)) must have co-existed in time along with the 'apostates' despite the lack of historical evidence.
(iii) the reason we don't have records of the existence of the 'real Christians' is that the 'apostate Christians' (especially the nascent Roman Catholic Church) purposefully wiped out all records of their existence.

(This of course is the recipe for Historical Revisionism.)

There are several problems with your introductory analysis. Those holding the opposite viewpoint would fit this description equally as well as they assume Roman Catholic history is not a revisionist work. Second, show me a person who is not convinced that his interpretations of scripture is correct and those who oppose him are incorrect?? Third, you argumentation ASSUMES that the Roman records are authentic history and so your bias taints your very arguments.

Furthermore, there is objective evidence to support genuine doubt of absolute credibility of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

1. You have obvious indications of perversion
a. Long versus short epistles
b. acknowledged spurious versus authentic writings

2. Contradictions between various Roman Monks in regard to the character of the same people they speak about.

3. Non-Christian historians who challenge the authenticity of the records and the reliability of Roman monks (e.g. Edward Gibbons)

4. Admission that Rome is responsible for preserving the records and yet authentic documentation of how Rome treats her enemies.

5. There is documentation within the Roman Monks records of those who rejected the total sacramentarian salvation view of Rome.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What is problematic, particularly regarding the second of these comments is that if it is true, we have a fantastical situation in which 'Roman monk historians':
(1) chose to preserve, either directly (ie by not 'burning' the primary source) or indirectly (ie by extensively quoting their sources) works of heretics with whom they strenously disagreed and denounced--ex: Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Celsus, etc.

Anyone who has done any amount of research into the methodology of the Roman Monks can clearly see they delighted in providing evidence to justify their condemnations of a person or group. So inclusion of those whose errors were abundantly obvious only vindicated their verdict of "heretic" and so they gladly included them in the record. Indeed, that is part of the problem. We know from the 7th century to the 16th century there is plentiful evidence that that Roman Monks and inquisitors invented false charges against the evangelical Christians (Paulicians, Waldenses, Anabaptists) in order to justify their legal persecution and execution by the Codes of Justinian (see Leonard Verduin, "The Reformers and their Step Children"; Also, the false charge of Manichean made against the Paulicians).

(2) apparently did a poor job of trying to wipe out non-canonical gospels (eg. Thomas, Mary, Philip, Judas, etc), Acts, and Epistles (purportedly written by apostles, but recognized as heretical) as we still have abundant evidence of these non-catholic writings.

You fail to understand that "sacred traditions" and apocralyptic literature has been adopted by Rome and is not necessarily condemned. For example, the non-canonical apostles creeds is accepted by Rome as part of "sacred tradition."

(3) left intact copious writings from the Fathers that would seem to disagree with later papal developments/claims as well as disagreeing with other peculiar Roman dogmas (eg, the immaculate conception); ...and yet...

What do you think the "magesterium" is all about. "Sacred Tradition" does not discount errors. Indeed the whole history of Rome is PROGRESSIVE filtering of "sacred tradition" in order to establish by church counsels and the magisterium church dogma. Remember Rome does not believe that the Scriptures are final authority. Rome is not stupid and total wiping out of everything contrary to what they finally hold as dogma would make it an apparent and obvious revisionism.

(4) not only failed to mention the existence of otherwise orthodox 'baptistic' type churches, but also managed to wipe out all alleged primary sources of these imagined 'baptistic' believers.

This is not true. There are conflicting records along with generalties that even non-Baptist historians agree indicates a Baptistic viewpoint concerning the Montanists, Novationists and Donatists as well as the Paulicians. There is sufficient conflict in records to indicate that Romish Monks hatred for even what they regarded and named as "Anabaptists" during this whole period of time and a succession of such groups. The generality is that one indivdiual and their characteristics is attributed to a WHOLE MOVEMENT without any evidence provided by Roman monks that this was true. Hence, with contradictions and generalties that leaves open the option that there is more here than what meets the eye.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

There are several problems with your introductory analysis. Those holding the opposite viewpoint would fit this description equally as well as they assume Roman Catholic history is not a revisionist work. Second, show me a person who is not convinced that his interpretations of scripture is correct and those who oppose him are incorrect?? Third, you argumentation ASSUMES that the Roman records are authentic history and so your bias taints your very arguments.

However, I am not scratching my head about the lack of Christians in the early period sharing my interpretations, nor do I have to imagine believers who did (or come up with an elaborate revisionist scheme to explain their absence from the historical record)

Furthermore, there is objective evidence to support genuine doubt of absolute credibility of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

1. You have obvious indications of perversion
a. Long versus short epistles
b. acknowledged spurious versus authentic writings

Give me some specific examples of this. I know of 1 or 2 examples of the situation you describe, and in the case of one man's writings, the problem has pretty much been solved (ie his authentic writings are identifiable). (Do you even know who I am describing?). At any rate, the vast majority of ante-Nicene writings do NOT fall into this category.

2. Contradictions between various Roman Monks in regard to the character of the same people they speak about.

Give me specific examples of 'Roman Monks' and how they contradicted each other. However, even if you can specifically name examples (which wouldn't be a problem for my view) a good historian is generally able to recognize the core of history in spite of conflicting details.

3. Non-Christian historians who challenge the authenticity of the records and the reliability of Roman monks (e.g. Edward Gibbons)

4. Admission that Rome is responsible for preserving the records and yet authentic documentation of how Rome treats her enemies.

5. There is documentation within the Roman Monks records of those who rejected the total sacramentarian salvation view of Rome.

You still seem to be hung up on the whole 'Roman Monk' thing, without even proving that 'Roman Monks' were the sole ones responsible for preserving ALL the writings from the ante-Nicence period--'orthodox' or otherwise. Plus, you seem not to see the profound problem with your sentiment which I pointed out above:

What is problematic, particularly regarding the second of these comments is that if it is true, we have a fantastical situation in which 'Roman monk historians':
(1) chose to preserve, either directly (ie by not 'burning' the primary source) or indirectly (ie by extensively quoting their sources) works of heretics with whom they strenously disagreed and denounced--ex: Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Celsus, etc.
(2) apparently did a poor job of trying to wipe out non-canonical gospels (eg. Thomas, Mary, Philip, Judas, etc), Acts, and Epistles (purportedly written by apostles, but recognized as heretical) as we still have abundant evidence of these non-catholic writings.
(3) left intact copious writings from the Fathers that would seem to disagree with later papal developments/claims as well as disagreeing with other peculiar Roman dogmas (eg, the immaculate conception); ...and yet...
(4) not only failed to mention the existence of otherwise orthodox 'baptistic' type churches, but also managed to wipe out all alleged primary sources of these imagined 'baptistic' believers.

What your historically revisionistic view thus amounts to is quite a bit of special pleading.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are several problems with your introductory analysis. Those holding the opposite viewpoint would fit this description equally as well as they assume Roman Catholic history is not a revisionist work. Second, show me a person who is not convinced that his interpretations of scripture is correct and those who oppose him are incorrect?? Third, you argumentation ASSUMES that the Roman records are authentic history and so your bias taints your very arguments.

First I would like to say that DT has put forth a good argument and has executed it well. Next I would like also to say that the first mistake from your hypothesis is that it is only Roman Catholics which have recorded history during this period of church development. Frankly there are other non-Catholic sources which have made comments on these events. We have Roman Imperial govenors, Jewish historians, Indeed Roman historians, Roman Generals, Orthodox witness (eastern churches), Heretical goups like the Nestorians that latter proceded to be the Assyrian Christian Church, Egyptians sources, an indeed Ethiopian sources. And when the entire body of work is assessed from the documents provided from this plethora of sources which substantiate claims which have been made we can be more assured of the historical accuracy of the events and writings in question.

Furthermore, there is objective evidence to support genuine doubt of absolute credibility of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Ok lets look at the provided evidence.

1. You have obvious indications of perversion
a. Long versus short epistles
b. acknowledged spurious versus authentic writings

This is a non sequitur. Primarily because in order to make these statements you must have a starting point by which you consider not a perversion. In otherwords these points aren't from an objective point of view. What is the body of work by which you claim a "non-perversion". Likely, you will claim the bible. Yet what you are really saying is that in your understanding of the passages in the current context of how you understand the passages is how you've judged the antenicean father's work against rather than with contemporary works or writings. It could be that your perception or understanding of the passages are spurious and you attempt to judge orthodoxy based on a later spurious development. In which case your argument based on these two points are irrelevant.

2. Contradictions between various Roman Monks in regard to the character of the same people they speak about.

Character is a very fluid thing. I would suggest roman monks in contrast to their contemporaries where you might have a good argument but that isn't your point. You are claiming the men themself of "questionable ethics and morality". which men you haven't claimed or which time period you haven't mentioned. So that in this statement, you make a vague accussation without specificity. However, I could judge King David of like questionable moral character yet we uphold his works of psalms as scripture. And you then find that your argument is short. There were problems with certain clergy certainly however in comparison few would darken the already dark choices of King David. So Character is not necissarily a litmus test to determine validity of work.

3. Non-Christian historians who challenge the authenticity of the records and the reliability of Roman monks (e.g. Edward Gibbons)

Some have primarily the Gnostics however these works should be compared and contrasted and used in determining the accuracy of what is said. Yet when taking a whole body of work what picture developes from what it is we see?

4. Admission that Rome is responsible for preserving the records and yet authentic documentation of how Rome treats her enemies.

Rome is not the only record keeper by the way. Just the most prolific. However, anytime you read about an "enemy" in history cognizances of this fact should be a factor in the determination of truth. For instance Just because Homer wrote the Illiad from a Greek perspective doesn't bely the fact that there is truth regarding Troy.
5

. There is documentation within the Roman Monks records of those who rejected the total sacramentarian salvation view of Rome.

I would be curious of what writings you are talking about specifically. Are they gnostic works? In which case You would be correct. However, by whom and how much? Are applicable questions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Many of these 'historians' share the same thought processes outlined above and thus commit the same fallacies as you.

You have formed your introduction based upon a biased presumption, which is, that what Rome supplies is an accurate non-revisionist history. Those I have mentioned are not Baptists and therefore you cannot charge them with be pro-Baptist and neither did they collaberate with each other. Hence, by their own investigation they came to the same conclusions. Perhaps you might consider the possibility there is a legitimate basis for all of them coming to the same conclusion other than bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt
The Roman Catholic response is the same toward these respected historians as it is to those it deemed as heretics - ridicule!

In the absence of actual evidence from primary sources, you resort to ad hominem--particularly raising the 'Roman Catholic' bogeyman.

Again, your own bias is made evident in this remark as well as your introductory remarks whereby you assume the accuracy and legitimacy of Roman Monks. Hence, you have made up your mind already and thus the kettle is calling the pot black.

I'll remind you again that I am NOT a Roman Catholic. I have profound disagreements with certain aspects of Roman dogma and papal claims, disagreements that are based on the same historical data that you describe as being preserved by the 'apostate Roman monk historians'(!). As I said regarding the question of the NT canon:

My criteria for disagreement with those things is not based upon profane history but upon the clear condemnation by the Word of God. Based upon God's word and the clear and unmistakable gospel of Christ it is impossible to reconcile either the Ante-Nicene baptismal regenerations with the Scriptures as it is to reconcile Rome with the Scriptures. Hence, one thing is for certain what we have recorded in Nicene accounts is not Biblical Christianity but the predicted apostate Christianity (Mt. 13; 1 Tim. 4:1; etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DT
It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts

Again your obvious bias is crystal clear. You assume traditions to be "simply the historical facts"



Quote:
Originally Posted by DT
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?

To which you gave no specific response at all. Instead you gave a general listing of secondary sources which I suppose you believe support your view--


Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
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.

If you have specific answers to my questions in the bolded comment above, please provide them with actual evidence that we can check from PRIMARY sources.
(1) Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
(2) What were the names of their leaders?
(3) Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

What you are asking me to do is to invalidate my own position that Rome has destroyed their writings in an attempt to destroy them and any memory of them. Very clever! Obviously you have never read any of these book or at least not studied their references. I suggest you read Leonard Veraduins book "The Reformers and their Step Children"



I guess the following is the closest you came to a specific answer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
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.

Okay--what is that 'sufficient evidence'? Which 2nd (or 3rd) century writer/writing listed the contents of the Old Latin or Syriac NT? -OR- Which manuscript from the 2nd or 3rd century supports your claim?

There is not sufficient evidence even from the Roman Monks records to deny that all versions of the Old Latin and Old Syriac translations lacked the 27 books. The most you can claimis that "some" seemed to lack four books. However, it is a lack of common sense that denies the churches had in their possession all the New Testament books as these books were not only written to but deposited with the churches by the Apostles. You may think it is "red herring" but it is actually the expose of the foolishness of Rome that it took 300 years for the supposed churches of Christ to figure out the apostolic writings. There was no issue of spurious writings until well into the second century by Roman Catholic accounts. Are we to believe the New Testament churches some how lost the apostolic writings given them between A.D. 50-150? That is exactly the absurd view of Rome. The spurious writings found their way into the spurious churches that became Roman Catholic.

Colossians 4:16 demonstrates the writings of Paul were to be circulated. Indeed, his prison epistles were designed to be circulated among the churches. Where is your proof that the churches did not circulate and make copies for themselves?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
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.

If you have specific answers to my questions in the bolded comment above, please provide them with actual evidence that we can check from PRIMARY sources.
(1) Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
(2) What were the names of their leaders?
(3) Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

What you are asking me to do is to invalidate my own position that Rome has destroyed their writings in an attempt to destroy them and any memory of them. Very clever! Obviously you have never read any of these book or at least not studied their references. I suggest you read Leonard Veraduins book "The Reformers and their Step Children"

Based on your statement here there is a very real question brought up. If as you say

that Rome has destroyed their writings in an attempt to destroy them and any memory of them.

Yet refer to secondary witnesses to them primarily

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 obvious question remains. How on earth do we have witnesses to documents destroyed long before? In fact, in order to have secondary sources there must be a retention of a body of work to which they refer. In this case you try to have your cake and eat it too. However, I read Foxes books of martyrs almost nightly and interestingly enough his early chapters are inline with the Catholic church. In fact, he goes along with the Catholic view of history for quite some time. Therefore you must ask yourself are we talking about Catholic history or just History?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, I thought you were through discussing anything with me? Obviously, I cannot write a book on this forum to defend my position as that would be too length and you will not read historians that point out the flaws of the Roman Monks and you would find a way to defend them if you did read them. So it is a waste of time.

All three of us have obvious bias due to a number of factors. My professor of church history while in seminary opened the class by drawing two trees on the black board with dozens of fruit laying on the ground. He frankly told the class that there are two models in church history (just as in science) and historians take one of two sides and take the fruit (evidences) and argue that it fits their model better than the other model. There is the Roman Catholic model of church history. There is the Free Church Movement model of church history. Obviously, you two espouse the Roman Catholic Church model and I espouse the Free Church model. BTW My professor espoused your model primarily with a few adjustments here and there because of his own researches in certain areas of history.

My model of church history includes all the secular sources you have mentioned in addition to the "church fathers." However, the predominant sources are Roman Monks.

I will let the professional historians that defend the model of the Free church movement argue my case. I have listed some of them and I doubt if either one of you have read any of them by the character of your comments.

First I would like to say that DT has put forth a good argument and has executed it well. Next I would like also to say that the first mistake from your hypothesis is that it is only Roman Catholics which have recorded history during this period of church development. Frankly there are other non-Catholic sources which have made comments on these events. We have Roman Imperial govenors, Jewish historians, Indeed Roman historians, Roman Generals, Orthodox witness (eastern churches), Heretical goups like the Nestorians that latter proceded to be the Assyrian Christian Church, Egyptians sources, an indeed Ethiopian sources. And when the entire body of work is assessed from the documents provided from this plethora of sources which substantiate claims which have been made we can be more assured of the historical accuracy of the events and writings in question.

Ok lets look at the provided evidence.

This is a non sequitur. Primarily because in order to make these statements you must have a starting point by which you consider not a perversion. In otherwords these points aren't from an objective point of view. What is the body of work by which you claim a "non-perversion". Likely, you will claim the bible. Yet what you are really saying is that in your understanding of the passages in the current context of how you understand the passages is how you've judged the antenicean father's work against rather than with contemporary works or writings. It could be that your perception or understanding of the passages are spurious and you attempt to judge orthodoxy based on a later spurious development. In which case your argument based on these two points are irrelevant.

Character is a very fluid thing. I would suggest roman monks in contrast to their contemporaries where you might have a good argument but that isn't your point. You are claiming the men themself of "questionable ethics and morality". which men you haven't claimed or which time period you haven't mentioned. So that in this statement, you make a vague accussation without specificity. However, I could judge King David of like questionable moral character yet we uphold his works of psalms as scripture. And you then find that your argument is short. There were problems with certain clergy certainly however in comparison few would darken the already dark choices of King David. So Character is not necissarily a litmus test to determine validity of work.

Some have primarily the Gnostics however these works should be compared and contrasted and used in determining the accuracy of what is said. Yet when taking a whole body of work what picture developes from what it is we see?


Rome is not the only record keeper by the way. Just the most prolific. However, anytime you read about an "enemy" in history cognizances of this fact should be a factor in the determination of truth. For instance Just because Homer wrote the Illiad from a Greek perspective doesn't bely the fact that there is truth regarding Troy.
5 I would be curious of what writings you are talking about specifically. Are they gnostic works? In which case You would be correct. However, by whom and how much? Are applicable questions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The primary sources are from the Roman Monks themselves and various statements they have made in describing the beliefs of those they persecuted and killed (legally of course - state church laws). Also, where they contradicted themselves or each other. We have also Augustine's version of what the Donatists believed recorded as he remembered it. There is quite a body of primary source materials for the beliefs and geographical movements of large bodies of non-catholic Christians due to the remarks of the Monks own records.

These confessions, inquisition records, descriptions are quite sufficient to form a pretty good idea what they actually believed and it is this source materials that provide much for the free church movement model. In addition in later years we have actual confessions of faith by the early non-presbyterian Waldenses prior to the Reformation and John Calvin.

We have a booklet "The Key of Truth" preserved from the Paulicians as well as monkish records defending the Paulicians from the charge of Manichaenism as they record the actual denials by the Paulicians that they were Manichean in doctrine but rather repudiated that doctrine and were falsely accused of it.

William Jones in his "History of the Christian Church" has gathered much of this material as well as several others.

However, I don't think either one of you are even interested enough to search the records to see - so what is the use in discussing it with you. I am convinced that such is the case and that is my position but it is my Biblical view of the gospel of Jesus Christ that leads me to the solid conviction that Rome and those embracing baptismal regeneration are of the accursed group of professed Christians rather than the true churches of Jesus Christ.

Based on your statement here there is a very real question brought up. If as you say Yet refer to secondary witnesses to them primarily the obvious question remains. How on earth do we have witnesses to documents destroyed long before? In fact, in order to have secondary sources there must be a retention of a body of work to which they refer. In this case you try to have your cake and eat it too. However, I read Foxes books of martyrs almost nightly and interestingly enough his early chapters are inline with the Catholic church. In fact, he goes along with the Catholic view of history for quite some time. Therefore you must ask yourself are we talking about Catholic history or just History?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, I thought you were through discussing anything with me?

I never said that. I think EWF espoused that. I did say I took things too personally but would measure my comments and rather defend what denomination I am If accused I would just say the person is wrong and leave it to that and try to provide a better case no matter what I am accused of.

Obviously, I cannot write a book on this forum to defend my position as that would be too length and you will not read historians that point out the flaws of the Roman Monks and you would find a way to defend them if you did read them. So it is a waste of time.

Well, no you can't write a book on church history on the forum but with your resources you could write a book of which I would buy and read. However, did I not say I've read and read on a regular basis Foxes Book of Martyrs? I've read Carroll and his commentaries on the NT. And I'm up for reading the opposing side however, you must ask yourself why is there such limited scholars on that particular side of the argument? And unlike what you've mentioned there is not an equal amount of "fruit" to come to either conclusion. The commonly accepted form of history by far out paces in evidence than what is purported here. Not only documents but in archeoligical find such as meggido, Dura Europa, finds in Rome, etc...

All three of us have obvious bias due to a number of factors. My professor of church history while in seminary opened the class by drawing two trees on the black board with dozens of fruit laying on the ground. He frankly told the class that there are two models in church history (just as in science) and historians take one of two sides and take the fruit (evidences) and argue that it fits their model better than the other model. There is the Roman Catholic model of church history. There is the Free Church Movement model of church history. Obviously, you two espouse the Roman Catholic Church model and I espouse the Free Church model. BTW My professor espoused your model primarily with a few adjustments here and there because of his own researches in certain areas of history.

In otherwords he believed based on his own research the facts to the view I support out weighs contrary evidence?

My model of church history includes all the secular sources you have mentioned in addition to the "church fathers." However, the predominant sources are Roman Monks.

The Roman Monks or the "desert fathers" are a limited group of people over a limited period of church history. Certainly they have their problematic issues.

I will let the professional historians that defend the model of the Free church movement argue my case. I have listed some of them and I doubt if either one of you have read any of them by the character of your comments.

I could be I have read some of them (which I have) and came to a differing conclusion. Just like I've read support for the TR over the Sinaticus or even the Alexandratus and have come to a differing conclusion based on supportive documents

 

[Dr. Walter]

However, I am not scratching my head about the lack of Christians in the early period sharing my interpretations, nor do I have to imagine believers who did (or come up with an elaborate revisionist scheme to explain their absence from the historical record)

Your bias assumes your position as correct "from the historical record." Furthermore, regardless of the sources the materials that make up the "church fathers" it is the Roman Monks who ultimately sifted through these materials, arranged them, and decided what would be included and excluded as all these materials were in the hands of Rome rather than in the hands of those they regarded as "heretics."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I was looking at the "Key of Truth" and found certain things about the Paulicans troubeling. 1) Jesus is not confessed to be God. 2) Jesus is confesed to be the son of God via a sexual relation between Mary and Gabriel. 3) All of the early Church councils were of the devil. 4) The do not believe in Fasts 5) They hold to be a secretive group not to reveal themselves until the time is right.
Other area's I can see to be a forerunner of Modern baptist save the ideas mentioned above which they purported. These bely the cult nature of the organization and thus seperate them from baptist.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Many of these 'historians' share the same thought processes outlined above and thus commit the same fallacies as you.

You have formed your introduction based upon a biased presumption, which is, that what Rome supplies is an accurate non-revisionist history.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate that is merely 'Rome' or 'Roman monks' who have preserved the historical data. You have made bald assertions and propounded some far-out conspiracy theories, yet offered no PROOF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt
The Roman Catholic response is the same toward these respected historians as it is to those it deemed as heretics - ridicule!

In the absence of actual evidence from primary sources, you resort to ad hominem--particularly raising the 'Roman Catholic' bogeyman.

Again, your own bias is made evident in this remark as well as your introductory remarks whereby you assume the accuracy and legitimacy of Roman Monks. Hence, you have made up your mind already and thus the kettle is calling the pot black.

Clearly you have made of your mind that 'Roman Monks' were the sole repositers and determiners of Church History without proving your position. Thinkingstuff has cited other examples of those whose works count as historical documents and which fall outside of the Roman monasteries.

I'll remind you again that I am NOT a Roman Catholic. I have profound disagreements with certain aspects of Roman dogma and papal claims, disagreements that are based on the same historical data that you describe as being preserved by the 'apostate Roman monk historians'(!). As I said regarding the question of the NT canon:

My criteria for disagreement with those things is not based upon profane history but upon the clear condemnation by the Word of God.

Ah...but it's on the basis your interpretation of the 'clear condemnation by the Word of God' that you declare history which disagrees with you to be 'profane'. I suppose the Mormon and JW can do the same thing (at least the JWs have Arius )

Besides you have yet to give a positive historical reason outside of the 'profane history' you denounce for even being able to identify the contents of the Word of God other than to offer a syllogism based on anachronistic assumptions.

Based upon God's word and the clear and unmistakable gospel of Christ it is impossible to reconcile either the Ante-Nicene baptismal regenerations with the Scriptures as it is to reconcile Rome with the Scriptures.

That's a question of interpretation (and a debate for another thread I'm sure)--I don't think it is at all 'impossible to reconcile...the Ante-Nicene baptismal regenerations with the Scriptures' as you assert.

Hence, one thing is for certain what we have recorded in Nicene accounts is not Biblical Christianity but the predicted apostate Christianity (Mt. 13; 1 Tim. 4:1; etc.).

Only based on the assumption that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct standard for judging what is 'Biblical Christianity'. Based on the standard of the patristic consensus of interpreting Scriptures, it was the Gnostics, Docetists, Ebionites, adoptionists, Marcionites, etc who were the predicted apostates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DT
It is not "Rome's view of canonization of scriptures"--it's simply the historical facts

Again your obvious bias is crystal clear. You assume traditions to be "simply the historical facts"

I am not assuming 'traditions' to be historical facts--I am basing my conclusions on the primary documents which are the historical data--not some revisionistic scheme which postulates imagined groups of proto-baptists (or Mormons, or Adventists, or [fill in the blank]) and then devises a conspiracy theory to account for their absence in the historical record.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I was looking at the "Key of Truth" and found certain things about the Paulicans troubeling. 1) Jesus is not confessed to be God. 2) Jesus is confesed to be the son of God via a sexual relation between Mary and Gabriel. 3) All of the early Church councils were of the devil. 4) The do not believe in Fasts 5) They hold to be a secretive group not to reveal themselves until the time is right.
Other area's I can see to be a forerunner of Modern baptist save the ideas mentioned above which they purported. These bely the cult nature of the organization and thus seperate them from baptist.

Ah, come on now, Thinkingstuff--you know the version of 'the Key of Truth' you are looking at must be corrupted version, interpolated by Roman Monks to throw us off. :smilewinkgrin:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
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.

DT: If you have specific answers to my questions in the bolded comment above, please provide them with actual evidence that we can check from PRIMARY sources.
(1) Where specifically were these "New Testament" (ie non-apostate) Churches located during the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
(2) What were the names of their leaders?
(3) Which of their writings had the exact same 27 book list as listed by Athanasius in AD 367?

WALT: What you are asking me to do is to invalidate my own position that Rome has destroyed their writings in an attempt to destroy them and any memory of them. Very clever! Obviously you have never read any of these book or at least not studied their references. I suggest you read Leonard Veraduins book "The Reformers and their Step Children"

THINKINGSTUFF:
Based on your statement here there is a very real question brought up. If as you say
Quote:
that Rome has destroyed their writings in an attempt to destroy them and any memory of them.
Yet refer to secondary witnesses to them primarily
Quote:
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 obvious question remains. How on earth do we have witnesses to documents destroyed long before? In fact, in order to have secondary sources there must be a retention of a body of work to which they refer. In this case you try to have your cake and eat it too. However, I read Foxes books of martyrs almost nightly and interestingly enough his early chapters are inline with the Catholic church. In fact, he goes along with the Catholic view of history for quite some time. Therefore you must ask yourself are we talking about Catholic history or just History?

Good response, by the way. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yet you have failed to demonstrate that is merely 'Rome' or 'Roman monks' who have preserved the historical data. You have made bald assertions and propounded some far-out conspiracy theories, yet offered no PROOF.

Rome claims to be the custodian of not only "sacred scripture" but "sacred tradition"! Who do you believe gathered the materials and arranged them as found in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene so as to be presented in their present condition? Did those that Rome condemn as "heretics" do that during the firs ten centuries? Who controlled the State power, the printing of religious materials? Did those Rome accused as "heretics" control those things during the first ten centuries? The same ones who gathered and arranged the materials would also be the same ones who either accepted or rejected the materials to be arranged as we now have them. Does not Rome claim that very honor? Edward Gibbons attributes it to Roman monk historians. What say you?

Clearly you have made of your mind that 'Roman Monks' were the sole repositers and determiners of Church History without proving your position. Thinkingstuff has cited other examples of those whose works count as historical documents and which fall outside of the Roman monasteries.

The vast majority of materials that relate to "church" history between the second and tenth centuries comes from Roman monks who gathered, collated and preserved them or from sources approved by the Roman Church. Even early scientists were afraid to publish anything that the church may regard as heresy as prison and death were the consequences.

Ah...but it's on the basis your interpretation of the 'clear condemnation by the Word of God' that you declare history which disagrees with you to be 'profane'. I suppose the Mormon and JW can do the same thing (at least the JWs have Arius )

Besides you have yet to give a positive historical reason outside of the 'profane history' you denounce for even being able to identify the contents of the Word of God other than to offer a syllogism based on anachronistic assumptions.

The only inspired history is contained in God's word and all else is "secular" or "profane." Unlike the Word of God secular history is:

1. Uninspired and therefore contains human bias and limitations
2. Incomplete and therefore never comprehensive of all that occurred
3. Inaccurate as the motives of men are not overruled as in the production of the scriptures.

That's a question of interpretation (and a debate for another thread I'm sure)--I don't think it is at all 'impossible to reconcile...the Ante-Nicene baptismal regenerations with the Scriptures' as you assert.

Do you believe that regeneration occurs in baptism?

You have no original source materials between the second and tenth century that relate to church history but those chosen, gathered and arranged and preserved by Rome. What other secular source materials are very limited in scope in their application to our study.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah, come on now, Thinkingstuff--you know the version of 'the Key of Truth' you are looking at must be corrupted version, interpolated by Roman Monks to throw us off.

Conybeare translates "the Key of Truth" and admits that there is no claim by the writer or indications in regard to the readers that it is Paulician in origin. Rome questions whether it originates with the Paulicians. Conybeare attributes it to a certain class of Paulicians in Armenia in the eighth century.

However, Rome on the basis of one witness (Photius) maintains the Paulicians were Manicheans even though they admit the Paulicians openly denied this charge and claim to repudiate the manicheans. The New Advent says:

It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte", Tübingen, 1909, II, 528).

The key of truth, if genuine, at least repudiates the charge they were manicheans or dualists. It repudiates the charge that they denied the Old Testament Scriptures and rejected the Lord's Supper.

The New Advent also admits that this was a huge and diverse movement that spread across Europe from one century to another and some remnants still exist to the present day.

The New Advent also admits that not all historians are in agreement with Rome's view based on one single witnes - Photius.

Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents. Conybeare (op. cit.) thinks they were a continuation of the Adoptionists. Dr. Adeney calls them "in many respects Protestants before Protestantism" (The Greek and Eastern Churches, 219).

The value of the "key of Truth" is not so much that this particular remnant in Armenia was Baptistic but rather evidence that Photius, the single Roman source for bringing charges against the Paulicians as a whole movement that led to at least 200,000 killed were due to misleading if not falsified charges that were simply accepted and perpetuated until this day.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It has been nearly 30 years since I read the "Key of Truth." Please excuse me for a while on this subject while I go back and read it and reaquaint myself with it as it has been so many years.

I know they believed the human Jesus was created but if I remember corretly they worshipped Him as the Son of God and called Him King "of heaven" as well as "all - powerful" Lord in heaven.

However, I will read it again before I make any further comments.

I was looking at the "Key of Truth" and found certain things about the Paulicans troubeling. 1) Jesus is not confessed to be God. 2) Jesus is confesed to be the son of God via a sexual relation between Mary and Gabriel. 3) All of the early Church councils were of the devil. 4) The do not believe in Fasts 5) They hold to be a secretive group not to reveal themselves until the time is right.
Other area's I can see to be a forerunner of Modern baptist save the ideas mentioned above which they purported. These bely the cult nature of the organization and thus seperate them from baptist.

 

[Matt Black]

Who are these 'Roman monks' that you keep going on about? What were their names? Where did they live? What did they write? Or have you just pulled them out of the ether like the rest of your 'church history'?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Who are these 'Roman monks' that you keep going on about? What were their names? Where did they live? What did they write? Or have you just pulled them out of the ether like the rest of your 'church history'?

Moe, Larry & Curley I'm thinkin! Wo Wo Wo Ruff, Ruff, Ruff