Rome and Finished Revelation

[Dr. Walter]

How did you arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity? The Bible plainly supports this doctrine, but without the aide of Church history and theological tradition, which is rooted in early church and Catholic doctrine, you and I would be unlikely to have arrived at it through the Bible alone.

Where did we get the Bible in the first place? The Sovereign Lord of His Church, used the Church Fathers to collect and canonize the Scripture. Who excluded the books that were heretical or simply less than Scripture? The Church Fathers, that's who... and that's a part of church tradition.

I'm not advocating a Catholic view, simply saying that we are, perhaps to a greatly lesser extent, heirs of church history and tradition as well.

If you mean the TERMINOLOGY (Trinity) then you are right. However, if you mean the doctrine then that would be wrong.

I believe the canonization of scripture was completed as early as A.D. 150 before the Old Latin and Syriac translation. All that the critics can say is that "some" of the Old Syriac copies are missing four of the 27 books currently found in the New Testament. There is not sufficient information for them to say that this is true with all the copies as they do not have all the copies. However, the fact that all but 4 books are contained in such early translations hundreds of years before Rome's canonization is very telling. I think the free church movement had the complete canon long before the apostate father's did. Indeed, even among the records of the church Father's the supposed missing four books were in apostolic churches and recgonized as authentic.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

I am a Conservative Congregational Pastor) follow Scripture alone while Catholics usurp Scripture with tradition.

Is there such a thing "Conservative Congregational Pastor" these days? I had to fight a baptist minister & a supposed congregational minister in New Jersey who were out to Change the oldest Congregational Church's name & denomination. I will say this....If you have a Conservative CC movement you better get on the stick & introduce some church plants & I would help if you do. We are swimming in liberal land here.

There aren't many! I serve an independent, presently unaffiliated, Congregational Church that was formerly U.C.C. but withdrew... well for obvious reasons... I hold standing and I fellowship with the 4C's (Conservative Congregational Christian Conference). We are the smallest of the Congregational Bodies.

The VERY theologically and socially liberal United Church of Christ has more than 5,000 churches, the only slightly less liberal National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (NACCC - I served one of their churches previously... long story) has more than 600 churches and is just more vague than the U.C.C. but little different.

Then there is the 4C's. (http://www.ccccusa.com/) I fellowship and serve the local association in Illinois (http://www.nifcccc.org/). We have, I think, about 450 churches and that is growing. We are Evangelical, biblically conservative. The 4C's was started by a group of ministers and church leaders who saw where the Congregational Association was going just prior to the inception of the United Church of Christ and withdrew in the 50's, forming the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference.

Sadly, I do not fellowship or associate with churches that are in the U.C.C. There is one just a few blocks away with historical ties to this church but their leadership is well, not terribly interested in the historical Christian faith or the Bible on its own terms...

The lifelong U.C.C. pastor who retired just prior to my call to my last church once told me "I am not saying that the virgin birth didn't happen, I'm just saying that it isn't an important part of the story..." Well then, what is? :BangHead:

 

[PilgrimPastor]

If you mean the TERMINOLOGY (Trinity) then you are right. However, if you mean the doctrine then that would be wrong.

I believe the canonization of scripture was completed as early as A.D. 150 before the Old Latin and Syriac translation. All that the critics can say is that "some" of the Old Syriac copies are missing four of the 27 books currently found in the New Testament. There is not sufficient information for them to say that this is true with all the copies as they do not have all the copies. However, the fact that all but 4 books are contained in such early translations hundreds of years before Rome's canonization is very telling. I think the free church movement had the complete canon long before the apostate father's did. Indeed, even among the records of the church Father's the supposed missing four books were in apostolic churches and recgonized as authentic.

I accept that on every point I am wrong and your are right... :laugh:

Seriously though, that's a good point. Surely the argument from Catholic apologists that Rome had primacy all the way back to Peter is a later construction for the purpose of legitimizing the Roman Church as Constantine sought to consolidate his empire around one "religion." The Free Church existed for the earliest part of the first centuries of the Christianity and was radically reinterpreted under Roman "conquest..."

I would tend to agree with you again, with regard to canonization, however I don't think this is an either or situation. Is it not possible that the brick wall we sometimes imagine between the 1st and 2nd century Church and that of Constantine is not as high or strong as we like to assume? Consider the Anglican reformation. Though Henry changed the church, the people, like Cranmer, that he brought with him into his new creation brought with them much of Catholicism.

Surely church practice, belief, and perhaps even structure held much unity between 324 and 325...

 

[Dr. Walter]

I accept that on every point I am wrong and your are right... :laugh:

Seriously though, that's a good point. Surely the argument from Catholic apologists that Rome had primacy all the way back to Peter is a later construction for the purpose of legitimizing the Roman Church as Constantine sought to consolidate his empire around one "religion." The Free Church existed for the earliest part of the first centuries of the Christianity and was radically reinterpreted under Roman "conquest..."

I would tend to agree with you again, with regard to canonization, however I don't think this is an either or situation. Is it not possible that the brick wall we sometimes imagine between the 1st and 2nd century Church and that of Constantine is not as high or strong as we like to assume? Consider the Anglican reformation. Though Henry changed the church, the people, like Cranmer, that he brought with him into his new creation brought with them much of Catholicism.

Surely church practice, belief, and perhaps even structure held much unity between 324 and 325...

Well, we agree for the most part. I do not believe New Testament Christianity ever embraced baptismal regeneration or infant baptism and it is clear that the picture presented by the Ante-Nicene records is that in 324-325 baptismal regeneration was commonly accepted. I believe the Montanists as movement rejected that doctrine among many other departures made by those represented by Rome in that time period. I also believe that the Novationist and Donatist movements rejected these teachings.

Roman apologists are quick to point out the individual characteristics and beliefs of Novatus and Donatus and followers in the local area but I believe just like Montanus they have demonized the whole movement by the characteristics of a few individuals. In an age without electronic communications I don't believe that such generalizations of such LARGE MOVEMENTS can be characterized by one or two persons.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Careful analysis

Several years ago when I studied original source documents pertaining to Old English Particular Baptists I kept running into a debate over "open" versus "closed" communion and I first I understood it as we use it today in reference to the Lord's Supper. However, after doing more investigation of other source materials I found out it had nothing to do with the Lord's Supper but with whether a church took in members that had been sprinkled or poured along with immersed ones. Those who did were called "open" communionists and those who did not were called "closed" as they closed the membership to only immersed believers.

Likewise, this is true in regard to much of the history of the free church movement. What appears to be true according to superficial reading is not necessarily so. Many times it requires a much wider reading of the historical circumstances and debates behind such written materials.

I believe this is true in regard to many charges made by Roman Catholics against them. Anyone who has read the introduction of Robert Robinson's Eccleastical Researches knows this is the problem that Robinson brings front and center. Most of the Waldenses historians not only assert the same thing but bring forth actual evidence to demonstrate the truth of it. William Jones, and Alix Muston and Samuel Moreland all assert this. Protestant historians as Augustus Neander and secular historian such as Edward Gibbons all make the same claim. Different Roman inquisitors of the Catharists and Waldenses present opposite accounts of their belief's and lifestyle. Different source materials gathered by Roman Catholics present contrasting descriptions of the Montanists and other large movements outside the party that developed a state church relationship with Rome. It is easy to read from the modern day historians where they struggle with conflicting terms and admitted doubts of credibility and bias that there is sufficient room for an alternative interpretation of the records.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

Well, we agree for the most part. I do not believe New Testament Christianity ever embraced baptismal regeneration or infant baptism and it is clear that the picture presented by the Ante-Nicene records is that in 324-325 baptismal regeneration was commonly accepted. I believe the Montanists as movement rejected that doctrine among many other departures made by those represented by Rome in that time period. I also believe that the Novationist and Donatist movements rejected these teachings.

Roman apologists are quick to point out the individual characteristics and beliefs of Novatus and Donatus and followers in the local area but I believe just like Montanus they have demonized the whole movement by the characteristics of a few individuals. In an age without electronic communications I don't believe that such generalizations of such LARGE MOVEMENTS can be characterized by one or two persons.

What do you think about the Didache with regard to baptism? You are plainly well studied on the subject. The Didache seems to state in the early section on baptism, that there is an order of precedence with regard to baptism. I am not in my study and don't have it with me, but it states basically that living or running water by immersion is preferred, then living non-moving water, etc.

I don't think either than the early Church practiced infant baptism as chief mode, however, there were no doubt a lot more conversions as primary, not as much generational Christianity so my suspicion is that the discussion happened along very different lines than today.

 

[glfredrick]

I've done a couple of debates against RC people concerning the state of baptism in the early church. Of course, the RC say that the Church has always done things just like they are doing now, but from an historical perspective, that is certainly not the utter truth.

The problem is, once the Church SAYS what is, that is what must be held by the members of the Church in order to be in good standing, for going against the Magisterium is akin to going directly against God.

Lots of historical revisionism going on, and from time-to-time one can even find decent evidence within RC writings. For instance, I have a RC catechism where it shows a picture of a baptismal pool in an early church and the descriptive text indicates that the Church at one time baptized believers by full immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- three steps down into the pool and three steps back out on the other side to tie in all the symbology. Added was text that described the catechumen and the length of time of study before being baptized to insure that the baptized one fully grasped the implications of being a Christian.

My how far they have fallen since... And, (according to that catechism) for mere pragmatic reasons. It was just easier and more expeditious to baptize newly born infants, so they created a doctrine for the purpose and moved forward as if it had always been that way.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Catechism found on-line:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

 

[Matt Black]

However, no one as yet has exegetically overturned my exposition of Isaiah 8:14-20 as Messanic and directly applied to the apostles. What we have shown is the unreliability of Tradition.

OK, I'll bite: the Messianic section of Isaiah only really gets going in chapter 40; just because St Peter uses a term there to subsequently describe Jesus in I Peter 2 doesn't mean that Isaiah 8:14 is 'Messianic' anymore than Yahweh's self-description as "I AM" in Ex 3:14 is 'Messianic' simply Jesus uses it to self-describe in Jn 8:58 - both OT terms are describing God.

 

[Matt Black]

The scriptures. (point, set, match...but I'll continue on anyway.) :wavey:

No points at all still less anything else: WHERE do the Scriptures say that the ECFs are uninspired?

The Holy Spirit never goes to sleep, Matt. Regarding the scriptures, they...and they alone...are our inerrant standard of truth, that anything and everything else is tested against.

Yes, but whose interpretation do we go with? Yours? Mine? Dr Walter's?

Its Gods idea Matt. You may not like it, but you can not change it, no matter how much the cult of Catholicism and the Cult of Liberalism tries to.

Since I am neither Catholic nor liberal, that's a straw man.

 

[Dr. Walter]

just because St Peter uses a term there to subsequently describe Jesus in I Peter 2 doesn't mean that Isaiah 8:14 is 'Messianic' anymore than Yahweh's self-description as "I AM" in Ex 3:14 is 'Messianic' simply Jesus uses it to self-describe in Jn 8:58 - both OT terms are describing God.

The writer of Hebrews quotes more than a word from Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13.

Isa. 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Heb. 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?.......13..... And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.


Both Paul and Peter quotes more than a word from Isaiah 8:14

Isa. 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.


Rom. 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Pet. 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

 

[Matt Black]

All very well and good but none of which addresses my point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

All very well and good but none of which addresses my point.

You were addressing my point in the use of Isaiah 8:14-20 and claiming that Peter merely used "a" word from Isaiah 8:14-20 and using a word does not mean it is a Messanic prophecy! I demonstrated your supposition was false. Both Peter, Paul and the writer of Hebrews all quoted whole phrases directly from Isaiah 8:14-20 and applied it directly to Christ and the apostles and such quotations are the basis for determining a passage is Messanic or not.

 

[Matt Black]

You haven't demonstrated anything! You've merely sidestepped the issue.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Interesting that the context of the passage is about God using the Assyrian Empire to bring Judgment on Israel. If you read the ECF as well as the writings of Paul and Peter you see this similarity. They considered everything practically in the OT to prefigure Christ. They Saw Jesus in just about everything and taught it that way. However, they were using a certain sense of Scripture to come at their view rather than being exegetical.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You haven't demonstrated anything! You've merely sidestepped the issue.

I have demonstrated that your accusation that Peter and others only used a word is wrong. I have demonstrated that Isaiah 8:14-20 is Messanic prophecy proved by three writers in the New Testament (Peter, Paul, writer of hebrews) quoting whole phrases directly from it and applying it to Christ and His apostles.

I could go on and further demonstrate that Isaiah 8:16 and the very phrases "the law and the testimony" in a Messanic context means the Old and New Testaments as the Old Testament is commonly called "the law" whereas the very function of the apostolic office is to be "witnesses" or give "the testimony" (Rev. 1:3) of Jesus and that the entire New Testament is written either directly by Apostles or under their direct supervision for that very purpose. That the last book of the New Testament begins with the claim to be "the testimony" of Jesus (Rev. 1:3) and ends with what can only be descriptive of a "seal" binding up that testimony (Rev. 22:18-19).

I can demonstrate that in the upper room discourse that one apsect of the promise of the Spirit was to lead the apostles into "all truth" (Jn. 16:13) and that Jesus said it would be through "their word" that future generations would believe and that they were aware they were producing inspired scriptures as a consequence (2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:17-18; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; Rev. 1:3, 22:18-19).

I can demonstrate that Isaiah 8:16 is Messanic in nature as those called "my disciples" in verse 16 who are to "bind up and seal the law and the testimony" are the apostles as verse 18 is applied directly to the apostles (Heb.2:4,13) and the next revelation after binding and sealing the law and testimony "among my disciples" in Isaiah 8:16 is the revelation of Christ FROM HEAVEN (Isa. 8:17) just as John says after binding up and sealing the law and the testimony in Revelation 22:18-19 followed with these words:

Isa. 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.


Rev. 1:3 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have demonstrated that your accusation that Peter and others only used a word is wrong. I have demonstrated that Isaiah 8:14-20 is Messanic prophecy proved by three writers in the New Testament (Peter, Paul, writer of hebrews) quoting whole phrases directly from it and applying it to Christ and His apostles.

I'm not sure what you are saying of Matt Black. However, as I've said the original intent of that text was to be prophetic about God's judgement on Israel. Rather than an attempt to be a prophesy of the Christ to Come as you see in Daniel Chapter 7. Peter, Paul, the writers of hebrews saw this as a prefiguring of What Christ was to do however the original intent of the passage is doubtfully intended to mean the Messiah. Certainly, there are consistancies with the operation of Gods will in the present and the prophetic future.

I could go on and further demonstrate that Isaiah 8:16 and the very phrases "the law and the testimony" in a Messanic context means the Old and New Testaments as the Old Testament is commonly called "the law" whereas the very function of the apostolic office is to be "witnesses" or give "the testimony" (Rev. 1:3) of Jesus and that the entire New Testament is written either directly by Apostles or under their direct supervision for that very purpose. That the last book of the New Testament begins with the claim to be "the testimony" of Jesus (Rev. 1:3) and ends with what can only be descriptive of a "seal" binding up that testimony (Rev. 22:18-19).

It seems to me that you are working really hard to force "Testimony" to be synominous with the New covenant. In otherwords your forcing pieces of a puzzle together.

I can demonstrate that in the upper room discourse that one apsect of the promise of the Spirit was to lead the apostles into "all truth" (Jn. 16:13) and that Jesus said it would be through "their word" that future generations would believe and that they were aware they were producing inspired scriptures as a consequence (2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:17-18; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; Rev. 1:3, 22:18-19).

Pentecostals demonstrate that the upper room is to be experienced by every one resulting in all christians speaking in tounges. It doesn't mean its so.

I can demonstrate that Isaiah 8:16 is Messanic in nature as those called "my disciples" in verse 16 who are to "bind up and seal the law and the testimony" are the apostles as verse 18 is applied directly to the apostles (Heb.2:4,13) and the next revelation after binding and sealing the law and testimony "among my disciples" in Isaiah 8:16 is the revelation of Christ FROM HEAVEN (Isa. 8:17) just as John says after binding up and sealing the law and the testimony in Revelation 22:18-19 followed with these words:

You can demonstrate that Isaiah is prophetic in nature and that the apostles saw a prefiguring of Christ in it.

Isa. 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.

Ultimately, Isaiah is indicating that God himself will diliver Israel and that this is not a permament state of affairs in Judgement for God's people.

Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

All apocalyptic liturature has this statement in it. To inlcude 1 Enoch. And the passage is specifically referring to the book of revelation.

 

[Matt Black]

You have asserted, not demonstrated; big difference. You haven't engaged with the Ex 3:14 - Jn 8:58 point, nor with the textual genre issue.

[Reply to Dr Walter]

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You have asserted, not demonstrated; big difference. You haven't engaged with the Ex 3:14 - Jn 8:58 point, nor with the textual genre issue.

[Reply to Dr Walter]

Clears throat.... "textual genre issue"

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not sure what you are saying of Matt Black. However, as I've said the original intent of that text was to be prophetic about God's judgement on Israel. Rather than an attempt to be a prophesy of the Christ to Come as you see in Daniel Chapter 7. Peter, Paul, the writers of hebrews saw this as a prefiguring of What Christ was to do however the original intent of the passage is doubtfully intended to mean the Messiah. Certainly, there are consistancies with the operation of Gods will in the present and the prophetic future.

Most Messanic prophecy has a two-fold application (1) literal historical (2) Messanic. For example, there is much Messanic prophecy where David is the historical figure that is literally and historically the actual subject. Peter, Paul and Hebrews make Isaiah 8:14-18 not merely Messanic but APOSTOLIC as well as they define the speaker as Christ and "my disciples" as the APOSTLES. You cannot honestly deny either the Messanic or apostolic application unless you accuse Peter, Paul and Hebrews as deluded and deceived. This clear and explicit Messanic and Apostolic application cannot be denied if one accepts the inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures.

It seems to me that you are working really hard to force "Testimony" to be synominous with the New covenant. In otherwords your forcing pieces of a puzzle together.

There is nothing "hard" here at all! The very office of apostle was designed to give "TESTIMONY" to Jesus Christ. Every New Testament book was either written directly by these apostles or directly under their supervision. Peter acknowledges that scripture is "more sure" (2 Pet. 1:19) than his own verbal testimony of his personal witness of Christ on the mount of transfiguration, thus acknowledging that his own writing of this account is scripture (2 Pet. 1:20-21) just as "ALL" of Paul's epistles are to be recognized as "other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

There is nothing "hard" in seeing that the LAST living Apostle writing the LAST apostolic book says that he bare record of "the Word of God AND The Testimony" ("the law...the testimony") and then sealed this record in Revelation 22:18-19 ("Bind up.....and seal"). There is nothing hard to see that Isaiah anticipated the next revelation after binding up and sealing "this word" (Isa. 8:20) to be Christ coming from heaven (Isa. 8:18) as did John (Rev. 22:20).
There is nothing "hard" to see that the book of Revelation takes you from the historical point in time of the Apostle John and churches in the first century (Rev. 1-3) unto the "new heaven and earth" (Rev. 21:1). There is nothing "hard" in seeing the last book reads as the natural conclusion to the first book and that all the books in between fit inbetween. There is nothing "hard" at all - nothing to "force."

There is nothing "hard" and nothing to "force" to see that this APOSTOLIC binding up and sealing "this word" is to be regarded as final in authority in Isaiah 8:20 as Isaiah 8:20 is a TIMELESS truth. It was true to the extent of the Biblical canon then. It was true to the extent of the Biblical canon at the birth of Christ. It is true in regard to the Biblical canon once bound and sealed with the Apostle John.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You have asserted, not demonstrated; big difference. You haven't engaged with the Ex 3:14 - Jn 8:58 point, nor with the textual genre issue.

[Reply to Dr Walter]

The proof that I have demonstrated and not merely asserted is seen in your inability to respond to the evidence provided.

1. It is a Messanic and Apostolic text in addition to its literal and historical application because Peter, Paul and Hebrews says it is.

2. Peter explicitly states that written record of his apostolic experience on the mount is "more sure" than his oral record (2 Pet. 1:17-19) making it equal to scripture as "ALL" the epistles of Paul are "scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

3. The apostles did directly write or supervise the writing of every New Testament book.

4. The purpose of the apostolic office was to be a WITNESS, thus a TESTIMONY of Jesus Christ.

5. The last living Apostle confirmed that he bear record of "The Word AND the Testimony" and sealed it (Rev. 22:18-19) just as predicted by Isaiah 8:16 with the only other revelation yet to come as the personal return of Christ from heaven (Isa. 8:18 with Rev. 22:20).

6. Isaiah 8:20 is a TIMELESS TRUTH. It was true with the extent of the Biblical canon when it was written. It was true with the extent of the Bibical canon at the birth of Christ. It is true with the completed Biblical canon by the Apostle John as no other revelation from heaven is to be expected except for the Second coming of Christ and therefore it is the claim that the total scripture as completed by the apostles is final authority until Christ returns.