Rome and Finished Revelation

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.

 

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).

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."

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.