Secularism; The Handmaid of the Jesuits Sunday, Jul 15 2012 

In previous articles I have spoken to the clear Jesuit roots of Socialism but now I want to flesh out the Jesuit influence behind the French Revolution which was responsible for the pluralization of my ancestral lands of the British Isles and the American Colonies through Thomas Jefferson [See also here].

I have already traced the intellectual genealogy of the Order beginning with the Ratio Studiorum and then their master students Descartes and Voltaire. But that is just the academic aspect of this plot. What we need to look at next is the political force behind the Revolutions of the late 18th and mid 19th centuries in France which accomplished little else than full scale assault on the Catholic enemies of the Jesuits and the traditional enemies of the Roman Hierarchy: The Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Protestant Christians.

On July 21, 1773 Pope Clement XIV’s brief Dominus ac Redemptor Noster suppressed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). There have been many that have said he was assassinated with poison for what he did. What is not disputed is that he died quickly of a sudden and severe sickness. To give the reader an example of Jesuit intrigue for which they were suppressed, Charles III was the King of Spain and the Spanish Indies from 1759 to 1788. [He was a Romanist- DS]. Spanish statesman Campomanes, tried to show Charles that the true leaders of a domestic revolt against Esquilache (Charles’ Minister Marquis of Esquilache) were the Jesuits. This led to their expulsion as the King became more aware of the Church’s increasingly unnecessary power.  In general, by the mid-18th century, the Jesuits had acquired a reputation for stealthy political maneuvering and economic exploitation. They were considered greedy and prone to meddle in state affairs through their close connections with powerful members of the royal court to further the interests of their society and of course the Papacy.

Here in 3 brief points we see the Secularist movement as the sword of the Jesuits:

1. Thomas Jefferson’s Pluralism was an all out attack on the Protestant Nations that had protected themselves from the Roman Catholic Church with anti-catholic legislation. The colony of Virginia under John Rolfe did not allow Catholic clergy or any kind of Catholic proselytizing. In the year 1700 the New York colony removed all Catholic spiritual persons having any kind of ordination that could be traced to the Roman Papacy.  Yet with Jefferson’s pluralism all these protections collapsed. John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States) complained about this in his letter to Thomas Jefferson, November 4, 1816,

“Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gypsies can assume, dressed as painters, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell it is this Society of Loyola’s…we are compelled by our system . . . to offer them asylum.”

As an interesting point of history, Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana provided refuge for the Jesuits in Louisiana. With this purchase the Jesuits would not have to leave. Was Jefferson in league with the Jesuits?  Louis XV King of France suppressed them in their lands in Louisiana butJeffersongot them off the hook. EJP says,

“With the Jesuits expelled from all of North America(which resulted in Masonic—Grand Orient—Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase from Masonic— Grand Orient Napoleon Bonaparte I thereby nullifying the Company’s French expulsion, further evidencing the Order’s control of the Continental—Grand Orient— Illuminati Lodges)”.  Vatican Assassins (2011) pg. 369.

Again EJP in his EJP Replies to Brother James on Rome’s Plot to Make George Washington a Jesuit points out,

“Remember, it was Jefferson (called an “Illuminatus” by the godly Jedediah Morse, father of Samuel Morse who invented Morse Code and wrote against the Jesuits in his Foreign Conspiracy) who, in 1803, purchased the land from Jesuit-ruled Napoleon we know today as “the Louisiana Purchase.”  This enabled the Jesuits to legally remain in the area (especially Missouri) since France had expelled the Jesuits from all her overseas holdings—which included the French-controlled land of the Louisiana Purchase.  Yet, what the devil’s men met for evil, God worked for good (Genesis 50:20), the lands of the LP also becoming—in the majority—White Protestant and Baptist dominions with many Native American Indians coming to Christ via the gospel.

It was also Jefferson, the president at the time, who did not object to Pope Pius XII’s legal recognition of the Jesuit Order in theUnited Statesin 1805!  Jefferson should have never allowed this, but in turn, expelled the Order once restored here in America.  But since Jefferson was a defender of Jesuit Illuminatus Adam Weishaupt (who died a Roman Catholic!), this is not surprising.”

Why then does EJP supportJefferson’s First Amendment pluralism? Here we see the clear use of the Secularist movement as the hand-maid of the Jesuits.

2. The French Revolution was pay-back against the nations that suppressed the Jesuits.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia in its article “The Suppression of the Jesuits (1750-1773)” says,

“The Suppression is the most difficult part of the history of the Society. Having enjoyed very high favor among Catholic peoples, kings, prelates, and popes for two centuries and a half centuries, it suddenly becomes an object of frenzied hostility, is overwhelmed with obloquy, and overthrown with dramatic rapidity. Every work of the Jesuits — their vast missions, their noble colleges, their churches — all is taken from them or destroyed. They are banished, and their order suppressed, with harsh and denunciatory words even from the pope. What makes the contrast more striking is that their protectors for the moment are former enemies — the Russians and Frederick of Prussia. Like many intricate problems, its solution is best found by beginning with what is easy to understand. We look forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones, the pope’s not excluded, which had been active in the Suppression is overwhelmedFranceSpainPortugal, and Italy become, and indeed still are, a prey to the extravagance of the Revolutionary movement. The Suppression of the Society was due to the same causes which in further development brought about the French Revolution.”

The Encyclopedia admits that the nations that suppressed the Jesuits were repaid with vengeance but refuses to face the Jesuit influence behind it. What is clear is that Weishaupt’s Illuminati, and yes Weishaupt was a trained Jesuit coadjutant, is the driving force behind the Jacobins and the Jacobins are the people that performed the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati was recognized as a movement that sought to overthrow all power and authority which laid the foundation for the Marxism of the next century and remains intact to a great degree today. All the ideas that I heard coming out of my atheist Father’s mouth are sourced in this movement. All I heard from my Father growing up was his hatred for authority, both religious and civil; his hatred for the rights of employers over employees; his hatred for responsibility and self-reliance; his hatred for his Father; his hatred for wealthy white men. These are all Jesuit ideas; they are communist ideas; they are atheist ideas. Thus Weishaupt is the Father of modern Communism (Don’t forget the Jesuit perfection of Communism in their Reductions). He used his Jacobins to conduct the French Revolution incited by his Jesuit trained Voltaire [Jesuits Collège Louis-le-Grand (1704–1711)] and Diderot [Jesuit College in Langres].

Emanuel M. Josephson in his The “Federal” Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefellers,  (New York: Chedney Press, 1968) pp. 4, 5 [Quoted in Vatican Assassins (2001), pg. 245] says,

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; [and] . . . by eventually having Napoleon throw Pope Pius VII in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order. This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822, Treaty of Verona.”

Napoleon Bonaparte was a supporter of the Jacobins and his army was mostly populated by people of the atheistic and deconstructionist sentiment that still influence my country today.  EJP says in Vatican Assassins (2001), pg. 247-249

“Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon Bonaparte drove the Bourbon  King of Spain, Charles IV, into exile? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon  exiled the Braganza monarchs, Queen Maria Francisca I (1777-1816) and her son  John (later King John VI, 1816-1826) of Portugalto Brazil? Did not the Jesuits  benefit when Napoleon drove the Knights of Malta from the island of Malta,  confiscating all their treasures and weapons? (Remember, the Knights had previously  expelled the Jesuits from Malta.) Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon  conquered the Protestant Dutch Republic, founded by one of our heroes, William I of Orange? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon conquered Italy, and vanquished Austria as both nations had expelled the Jesuit Order? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon conquered Protestant Switzerland? Would not the Jesuits have benefited if the French General Hocke had succeeded in breaking away Catholic Ireland from Protestant England (later accomplished after World War I)? Would not the Jesuits have benefited had Napoleon conquered Jerusalem, he having called for the establishment of “Jerusalem for the Jews” on April 14, 1799? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon broke up the Pope’s Holy Roman Empire? Why did nearly every strategy of Napoleon result in benefiting the Jesuit Order? The answer is in the person of Abbe Sieyes. According to Ridpath’s Universal History this priest was a prime mover of the French Revolution, the Directory, and was the Second Consul on Napoleon’s Consulate (Pierre-Roger Ducos being the third), calling for the end of the nobility and clergy — the enemies of the Society of Jesus! It is also most fascinating to see that Sieyes, the man whose coup d’etat brought Napoleon to power, was Jesuit-trained. We read:

“Sieyes, Emmanuel Joseph (1748-1836), one of the chief political thinkers  and writers of the period of the French Revolution and the first empire . . . He was destined for the Church, was educated by the Jesuits, became a licentiate of the Canon law [including the oppressive and evil Council of Trent] . . . ” [The Encyclopedia Britannica, New Werner Edition, New American Supplement, Ninth Edition, Day Otis Kellogg, (New York: The Werner Co., 1903) Vol. XXII, p. 45- Footnote in Vatican Assassins-DS]

Thus Napoleon, the Roman Catholic Freemason called “Robespierre on horseback” by Madame de Stael, whose right-hand man was both a Jesuit-trained and controlled advisor, Abbe Sieyes, was brought to power from the Jesuit stronghold of Corsica.”

…Following Napoleon’s Russian campaign – his successful betrayal and murder of hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving republican soldiers [Napoleon abandoned themHe had to kill this army that would never accept an Absolute monarch as described in Ridpath’s Universal History, Vol. XIV, p. 746, “As soon as the fate of his great campaign was decided, Napolean, leaving Murat in command of the army, took a sledge, sped with all hast across the snow-covered wastes of Poland, and came unannounced to Paris.”-DS] – the Jesuits sought to restore the old order of things. The Jesuit Order was revived in 1814 and the Congress of Vienna began as well. Meanwhile, Napoleon was rewarded for a job well done with an annual pension of two million francs while on the island of Elba. But the Monarchs at the Congress of Vienna squabbled; so, the Jesuits brought Napoleon back to France, known as “the hundred days.” This frightened the Monarchs into coming to terms with each other. With the Congress of Vienna having fulfilled the purpose of the Jesuit Order, the soldiers of France could now be finally defeated. Napoleon gathered an army of French patriots and deliberately sacrificed it at Waterloo by attacking the wrong point of the British line. We read concerning General “Stonewall” Jackson’s observations:

“In the summer of 1856, he employed his long vacation in a European tour, in which he visited England,France, and Switzerland. During this journey he carefully examined the field of Waterloo, and traced out upon it the positions of the contending armies. When he returned home, he said although Napoleon was the greatest of commanders, he had committed an error in selecting the Chateau of Hougomont as the vital  point of attack upon the British line; it should have been the village of Mont St. Jean. This opinion has subsequently been corroborated by high authority in the military art.” [Life and Campaigns of Lt. General T. J. (Stonewall)Jackson, R. L. Dabney, (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1983; originally published in 1865) pp. 82, 83.-Foonote-DS]…

Dear truth-seeker, do you think the master of Austerlitz would make such a basic blunder – by accident – blasting all hope for French liberty? How ridiculous! Napoleon was captured by the English and banished to an island in the South Atlantic Ocean called St. Helena. There, his Memoirs were written which accurately described his masters, the Sons of Loyola, having betrayed him into the hands of his captors.”

History of the Captivity of Napoleon at St. Helena (1846) by Montholon Volume 2, pg. 388 says,

“But there is a religious society, the tendency of  which is highly dangerous, and which should never  have been admitted into the territories of the empire- — viz., the Society of Jesus. Its doctrines are subversive of all monarchical principles. The General of the Jesuits desires to be sovereign master, the sovereign of sovereigns. Everywhere that the Jesuits are tolerated, they strive for power, at any price. Their society is by nature fond of ruling, and nourishes, therefore, an irreconcilable hatred of all existing power. Any action, any crime, however atrocious it may be, is meritorious, if committed- for the interest of the society, or by the orders of its General. The Jesuits are all men of talent and learning. They are the best existing missionaries, and would be, were it not for their ambition of ruling, the best instructing body, for the propagation of civilisation and the development of its progress. They may be of service in Russia for some years longer, because the first need of that empire is civilisation.”

3. The Jesuit and Roman Hierarchy were behind both the French and Russian Secularism. The French Revolution was the foundation for Marxism. Marx was highly influenced by Pierre Proudhon; and remember, in 1917 the Roman Catholic Lady of Fatima hoax began in May and lasted for 6 consecutive months. Ending October 13, it called for the conversion of Russia (Traditionally Eastern Orthodox/Russian Orthodox which broke from Rome in 1054 A.D. denying Papal Supremacy). The Bolshevik revolution began October 25, 1917: 12 DAYS LATER!

EJP says on page 397 of Vatican Assassins,

“The parallels between the Jesuits’ French and Russian Revolutions are striking. They are as follows:

1. Both revolutions were based on communist writings of Freemasons —Voltaire and Marx. Did not the Jesuits perfect communism on their reductions in Paraguay?

2. Both revolutions plundered the state churches. Were not the Jesuits the enemies of the Catholic Church in France and the Orthodox Church in Russia when the revolutions broke out?

3. Both revolutions ended the monarchies. Were not the Jesuits enemies of both the Bourbon and the Romanoff dynasties? Had not both monarchies expelled the Jesuits from their countries?

4. Both revolutions produced Jesuit Republics— republics in form, but absolute monarchies in power. Are not the Jesuits absolutists?

5. Both revolutions declared atheism as the religion of the state. Evidenced by their deeds, are not the Jesuits truly atheists?

6. Both revolutions carried out a reign of terror by an inquisitional secret police. Are not the Jesuits the greatest of Inquisitors?

7. Both revolutions resulted in military dictators who punished the enemies of the Jesuits. Did not the Jesuits benefit even though Napoleon and Stalin, in deceiving the nations, openly banned the Order from France and Russia?”

Is it just a coincidence that Secularism ushered in the bloodiest century in the history of the world focusing on all the most traditional enemies of the Jesuits and the Roman Papacy? Is it just a coincidence that every atheist I have ever known has been a white person? I have never personally known a person of color to be an atheist…hmmmmmmm.  If you notice in the video I cited, the atheistic detractors to Doug Wilson were all white people. You see the white race with its Protestant Christianity is the fundamental concern of the Jesuits. That is why we are brainwashed to hate White Christians in the Secular West. We are the people who have the intellectual capabilities to expose their evil devices. Our intellects must then be turned away from the Bible and the Protestant Reformation to all of the insanities, moral depravities and gaping holes of Secularism; constantly chasing the white rabbit of science that has always and will always evade the grasp of man [See here and here and here]; therefore walking right into the trap of the Jesuits and the inevitable re-assimilation of our once Protestant Heaven on Earth into the re-made Holy Roman Empire. Yes, my atheistic, secularist friend, the Jesuit and Papal controlled CFR will not introduce you to the Pre-Socractic Era of Greek Philosophy or the history of Europe and the Protestant Reformation in their mind control concentration camps known as State Universities. You are the replacement for the Protestant Reformation. As long as you are an atheist you are not a Protestant and therefore you pose no threat to the Jesuit agenda. To quote those haunting words of Morpheus, “What is the Matrix [Secularism-DS]? Control. The Matrix [Secularism-DS] is a computer-generated dream world [Exactly how Morris Kline describes the attempts to apply mathematics to the physical world-DS] built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this. [holds up a Duracell battery] You may reply, “No, I don’t believe it. It’s not possible.” I didn’t say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.

A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies By Jean Daillé Monday, Sep 19 2011 

A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies By Jean Daillé

This books was written in the 17th Century by French Protestant Jean Daille’, to defend to Protestant cause against the arguments of the Papists with regard to the presumed antiquity and unity of the Roman Religion and issues of authority. Daille’ exposes the inconsistencies,  contradictions of the Fathers, ambiguities of the Fathers, forgeries of the books supposedly written by the Fathers, the mis-use of the Fathers by Patristic Apologists against the Protestants and the anachronistic attempts to point the Fathers against the Protestants, the failure of the Patristic Churches to define what agreement there is among the Fathers, the fact that the Fathers themselves denied that they were to be considered authorities, and that the Patristic Churches only use them as the Fathers fit their desires. It is altogether devastating to both the Eastern and Roman Anchorism and is to add another book onto the pile of books that the Eastern andRoman Churches must deal with before they can be credibly acknowledged to have dealt with the Reformation.

Irenaeus on the Gnostic View of Authority; Sound Familiar? Friday, Aug 26 2011 

Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 2)

The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.

“1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.”

Much confusion here ay? The Gnostics said that to understand scripture you must have knowledge of tradition and the viva voce.  Sounds exactly like Eastern Orthodoxy and Romanism. Especially the latter.

Private Judgment in William Whitaker Thursday, Aug 25 2011 

A Disputation on Holy Scripture, pg. 460-461

“Our thirteenth argument is to this effect: No man is a sufficient judge of controversies or interpreter of scripture: therefore, not the pope. For no man ought to decide controversies by his own authority, but by that of another, namely, of God and the scriptures. So formerly the Nicene fathers condemned Arius by divine testimonies; so the holy bishops condemned Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, by the authority of scripture, and not by their own. Besides, if a man could define controversies by his own authority, he would have a sort of lordship over our souls and faith, which the apostle plainly denies, 2 Cor. i. 24… Furthermore, if we were placed in the power of a man, to remove all controversies and determine what should be believed, then the sentence of a man would be the matter of our faith.

Our fourteenth argument is as follows: If the scriptures do not interpret themselves or judge controversies, this is because they are either obscure or imperfect. But neither impediment exists: for we have shewn before that they are plain in all necessary things; and that they are perfect in all respects, we shall demonstrate hereafter.

Our fifteenth argument is this: Every one ought to rest upon his own faith and his own judgment, and not depend upon another’s will and pleasure. Therefore the Roman pontiff is not the sole judge of controversies in the church. For each individual should be his own judge, and stand by his own judgment, not indeed mere private judgment, but such as is inspired by God: and no one can bestow the Holy Spirit save God who infuses it in whom he will. Nor can any one man render another certain in matters of religion, with whatever authority he may be invested. Christ says, John vi. 44, 45, “No man can come unto me unless my Father draw him: wherefore whosoever hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me.” John the Baptist says also, John iii. 33, “He that receiveth his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.” There is, therefore, need of Christ’s testimony before we can truly and aright believe anything.

There remains now our last argument, which is drawn from human testimony, and the authority of the ancient fathers. Irenaeus, in his 4th book against Heresies, cap. 63, says that “the legitimate and safe exposition of the scriptures is by the scriptures themselves1.” Hilary, in his 1st book upon the Trinity, writes thus upon this subject: “The best reader is he who rather waits for the meaning from the words than imposes one, who takes instead of giving it, nor forces that to seem to be contained in the expression which, before reading it, he had presumed to be the sense. When, therefore, the discourse shall be of the things of God, let us allow to God the knowledge of himself, and wait upon his words with a pious veneration. He is a sufficient witness to himself, who is not known but by himself.” So Hilary.

Augustine hath many testimonies in our favour. In his book of Marriage and Concupiscence, Lib. n. cap. 33, he writes thus: “This controversy requires a judge.” But who shall be the judge? He replies, “Let Christ be the judge.” And a little after: “With him let the apostle judge also; for Christ himself speaks in the apostle3.” Why did he not say, Let the Roman pontiff ”.

 

Samuel Rutherford on Apostolic Succession Sunday, Aug 21 2011 

Rutherford says, regarding Apostolic Succession,

  “we deny the Popish succession to be a note of the Church, nor doe we in any sort contend it. First, because a right succession must be a succession to truth of Doctrine, not persaonall or totall to the chaire and naked office. So Tertullian [Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32-DS], and falshood may succeed to truth, sickness to health, as Naziazen [Orations 11-DS]. Yea, as Occam saith, Laymen and Teachers extraordinarily raised up, may succeed to hereticall Pastors.

 Secondly, there is succession to the errors of preceding teachers, either materiall without pertinacie, holding what they hold; orformall to the same errors, with hatred of the truth and pertinacie; the latter we reject, the former may be in lawfully called Pastors. See what Beza saith of this …And as Augustine [FN: Aug-de vinc.c.16.], when they doe prove themselves to be the Church onely by Scriptures, non nisi canonicis libris. Thirdly, we deny not but Asia, Africa, Ehypt, and a great part ofEuropeheard not a word of Christ for a long time, as Binnius [FN: Binnius 10.4 p. 599] observeth in the Lateran Councell [FN: Concil. lateran.c.10.l.8. iscet deslaza]. And succession was interrupted many ages in the world saith Prosper [FN: Prosper de vocat gentium l.2.c.6.] and Augustine [FN: Aug-de consens. Evang-l.2.c.31]. Nor can Bellarmine [FN: Bellarm de Pont. Rom cap.4.] deny it.”

 Due Right of Presbyteries [London:E. Griffin, 1644], pg. 185

Is the Pope the Antichrist (?) and Can a Protestant Believe Anything Different? The Former I Affirm the Latter I Deny Wednesday, Aug 17 2011 

Calvin’s Institutes (4.2.12) says,

“However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine. Daniel [Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God.”

First, notice how the fundamental principle of the Church’s Being and Well-Being, which is the basis for the Protestant view of Separation which was foundational to the Reformation is directly connected with the doctrine that the Pope is the Antichrist. Let any Preteristic or Futuristic reader take this strongly to heart. You cannot be a Presbyterian and deny the Historicist Eschatology and its accompanying doctrine that the Pope is the Antichrist. They are a Package deal with reference to Church Authority.

The Westminster Confession 25. VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Antichrist simply means one who is against Christ by means of substitution. Luke 11:11 says “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? In the Greek text, the word “instead” is “anti”. The same root in the word antichrist. The idea is that an antichrist is someone who is against Christ by means of substitution. In the NT the context of antichrist is always apostasy. 1 John 2:18-19 mentions the antichrists being in the Church and apostatizing from it. This is why vs. 22 cannot mean that the antichrist never had anything to do with Christianity. He is someone who is in the Church and defects from it, just like 2 Thess 2. In 2 Thess 2:4 the “Temple of God” where his office dwells is not the temple of Solomon. The Temple mentioned in 2 Thess 2 is the Greek word naos. Every time Paul refers to the Church as the “Temple of God”(1 Cor 3:1617, 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:21, etc.) he uses this word naos. Without exception, every time Paul refers to the physical Temple of Solomon he uses the word hieron not naos! Without exception! 2 Thess 2:4 is referring to an office in the Church. 2 John 1:7 couches the theme in gnosticism as well. Now the gnostics believed that in order for the common man to understand the Bible he had to go to the hierarchical intermediary to get a hidden interpretation of the scripture. He alone could give you this information, due to his authoritative status in the hierarchy. He was a substitute for the prophetic office of Christ. Edward Moore’s (St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology) article Gnosticism from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says,

“Indeed, while the receptive hermeneutical method implies that we have something to learn from a text, the method employed by the Gnostics, which we may call the “revelatory” method, was founded upon the idea that they (the Gnostics) had received a supra-cosmic revelation, either in the form of a “call,” or a vision, or even, perhaps, through the exercise of philosophical dialectic. This “revelation” was the knowledge (gnôsis) that humankind is alien to this realm, and possesses a “home on high” within the plêrôma, the “Fullness,” where all the rational desires of the human mind come to full and perfect fruition…On this belief, all knowledge belonged to these Gnostics, and any interpretation of the biblical text would be for the purpose of explaining the true nature of things by elucidating the errors and distortions of the Demiurge.”

2 Thess 2:3-4 teaches that this apostasy will culminate in an office. “He will take his seat.” It says that this man will take his seat in the temple of God. 2 Thess 2:8 says that this office will end at the second coming. So the apostasy was already beginning at the time of the apostles (Very difficult for Patristic ecclesial views of preservation) culminated in an office that sought to substitute for Christ and the authority of his prophetic office; proclaimed his own authority of interpretation of scripture; and this office will not be destroyed until the second coming. Who is it? Methinks as with virtually every other Protestant divine for the first 300 years of the Reformation, the Papacy. I suggest three works for you:

1.Francis Turretin’s 7th disputation: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/catalogue/turretin.pdf

2. The Papacy Is The Antichrist by Wylie
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf

3. Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele

http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/eschaton/apocalypse/index.html

 

 

A Dialogue between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant By Matthew Pool Reviewed by Drake Shelton Tuesday, Jun 7 2011 

Based on A Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, by Matthew Pool (London, Cockeril at the Atlas in Cornhill, 1676)

From my discussions with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics I found it necessary to get more acquainted with the thinking of the Protestant Scholars who were separating from Rome during and right after the Reformation. I want to be fully oriented with the reasons that these men took such drastic steps and understand the underlining theology that they thought justified such a radical move. The following are statements or principles that I read from Pool’s book that I thought were the most important for contemporary Protestant Christians to understand. These principles would apply to both the Eastern and Western Anchoretic Churches and for that reason I have found them the most pertinent. I want both Eastern and Roman Anchoretics  to understand the fundamental errors of the Anchoretic revolution from God’s religion.

The dialogue was formatted that when Pool speaks he is labeled “Prot.” while the Roman position is labeled “Pop.”.

1. Both the Eastern and Roman Churches find great assurance and comfort in thinking that their Church is infallible. Pool points out that they can never show what exactly about their Church is infallible. What is the infallible judge? The clergy and laity as a whole? The laity only? The Pope only? The Papacy as a group? A general council? Writings cannot be the judge because the Romanists boast of the living prophetic office of the Pope. (Pg. 7-8) So which is it?

2. “Pop . Then another Argument against your Church and way, is taken from the Novelty of it; As for our Religion, it hath had possession in the world ever since the Apostles days; but you are yesterday, and know nothing; your Religion is an upstart Religion, never heard of in the World till Luther’s days.

Prot. First, let me ask you this question, If you had lived in the days of Christ, or of the Apostles, or of the Primitive Fathers, what would you have answered for your self? You know better than I, that this was the very argument which Jews and Heathens [I get this from my Hindu friends all the time] urged against the Christians then; they charged Christ with not walking after the Tradition of the Elders, Matth.7.5. And the Athenians said to PaulMay we know what this new Doctrine is?   Acts 17.19. And the Pharisees had antiquity on their side, being Zealous for the Traditions of the Fathers, Gal 1.14. And though it be true that the Apostles had the first Antiquity for them, delivering nothing but what for substance was in Moses and the Prophets, Acts 26:22. (which is also our case) yet the immediate and latter Antiquity was against them, and for divers ages together these Doctrines had been in great measure obscured and unknown.”

Take John 3 for instance when Nicodemus complains of the birth from the Spirit John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Had this doctrine been buried in false teaching and obscurity for centuries just like justification by faith?

Continuing with Pool, “What then would you have answered to a Jew or a Heathen objecting this Novelty to you? Learn from Christ, who when the Jews pleaded for the continuance of their old practices in the matter of Divorces; he accounted it sufficient confutation, that from the beginning it was not so. Mat.19.7. And to all the pretences of the Pharisees from Antiquity, he opposeth this one thing, Search the Scriptures, John 5.39.”

(pg. 21-22

3. On page 22-23 Pool asserts that the Protestant movement affirms “the doctrine of the four first General Councils”. It is often alleged that we accuse the early Church of apostasy therefore we believe that the early Church was somehow, run by the devil. This of course would make a problem for us when they decided what books of the Bible were in the canon. This simply is not true that we believe that the early Church was run by the devil. Officially the Church began to be run by the devil sometime in the latter 6th century between the reign of Pope Vigilius and Gregory the Great.

4. He continues to show that the Roman Religion affirms all our doctrines but continually adds to them. Justification by faith plus works; two sacraments plus five more;  heaven and hell plus purgatory; Christ the mediator plus others; worship of God plus images; Pool concludes, “These are the Principal points of our Religions, and dare you now say that our doctrines are new?” pg. 23

5. “Prot. Besides, methinks, you deal barbarously with us, you drive us out from you by your tyranny, and then you blame us for departing; as if Sarah had called Hagar a Schismatic for going out of Abraham’s family, from which she forced her: Tell me, I pray you, if the case be so that I must depart from the Roman Church, or from God, what must I do?” pg. 25

6. The Catholic Church is the “whole multitude of believers, and Christian in the world” pg. 25 not a particular communion. See WCF 25.

7. The Mother of us all is not Rome But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Gal 4:26. The invisible Church.

8. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communicants often use the argument that a visible and established Authority is required to understand and interpret the Bible. This is the position of the unbelieving Jews at Christ’s time. The Jewish Chief priests and elders said to Jesus,

Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

This is an interesting question because the Pharisees probed John’s authority to act in an ecclesiastical manner as well in John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

They could not tell. I ask you the same question sir:  Was John the Baptists Baptism from heaven or from men? If it was from heaven what empirical proof did John offer? None. Where did John get the authority to do these things? Obviously it was not from the Jewish Magisterium.

In Acts 4:7 Peter is asked of his healing of the impotent man “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” His answer is the name of Jesus of Nazareth. No ecclesiastical or Magisterial reference here. No empirical proof. Pg. 27

9. On page 28 Pool removes the possibility of succession binding on future Christians because the Church of Rome is not agreed on whether Linus or Clemens was Peter’s successor.

10. “Prot. I pray you tell me in the first place, Are divisions a certain Argument to prove any Church not to be true?

Pop. I cannot say so; for it is plain, the Jewish church in Christ’s time was full of Divisions ; there were Pharisees, Sadduces, Essenes, &c. And so was the Church of Corinth in St. Paul’s time, while some said, I am of Paul; others, I of Apollos; others, I of Cephas; and some denied Paul’s Ministry and Apostleship, and some denied the Resurrection.

Prot. Very well, then you may blush to use such an Argument”. pg. 31

Pop. There must be in all ages, in some eminent place, a great company of Christians visibly united together in the worship of God in one Body and Congregation, and governed by their successive Pastors under the Pope.

Prot. Very well: Now I know your mind .And first I deny, that it is necessary for the true Church to be so visible in all ages: Do you prove it?

Pop. That I shall easily Prove, from those many and glorious promises made to the Church; the Church is called a great Mountain, and said to he exalted above other Mountains, Isa. 2. She is a City set upon a Hill that cannot be hid. Mat. 5. Christ hath promised to be with her to the end of the World. Mat…The gates of Hell stall not prevail against her; Christ’s Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom- Psal. 88. Dan. 2. A few invisible and dispersed Christians, cannot make a Kingdom.

Prot. Your Proofs are impertinent. Isa. 2. doth prove, that the Church under the New Testament, (should be glorious (that is spiritually ) and prevalent: so it was (and we trust will be; but he saith not, the Church should always continue in that condition (which is the point that you should prove; Mat…if it spake of the Church, Christ only tells us what the Church then was, not that it should always remain.”

Pg. 34

11. Where is the Protestant Church before Luther? A

Pool quotes Gilbert Genebrard’s Chronology l [That’s a lower-case L not number 1].3.c.16  where Genebrard is criticizing the Waldenses  “This sect is the most pernicious of all others, for three causes; 1. Because it is of long continuance, some say, that it hath endured from the time of Sylvester; others from the time of the Apostles. The second is, because it is more general, for there is almost no Land in which this Sect doth not creep. 3. That whereas all others by the insanity (?) of their blasphemies against God, do make men abhor them,  these have a great shew of godliness because they do live justly before men, and believe all things well of God, and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed, only the Church of Rome they do blaspheme and hate.”

Pool continues “Behold here out of your own mouths a plain Confutation of your objection, and a testimony of the perpetuity, amplitude, visibility, and sanctity of our Church; for it is sufficiently known that our Church and Doctrine is for substance the same with theirs.”

12. Where is the Protestant Church before Luther? B

Pool says,

“Moreover, I find in Scripture, several instances of such times when the Church was as much obscured, and invisible, as ever our Church was; as when Israel was in Egypt, so oft-times under the Judges, Judg. 2.3, and so under divers of the Rings, as Ahab, when Elijah complained he was left alone, and the 7000 which were reserved, though known to God, were invisible to the prophet ;  and under Ahaz and Manasseh and so in the Babylonian Captivity: and so under Antiochus; read ay thy desire, 2 Chron. 15.3 28.24.29. 6,7.33. 3,4. So in the New testament, how obscure, and in a manner invisible wad the Christian Church for a season? Nay, let me add. This perpetual visibility and splendor is so far from being a note of the true Church, that on the contrary, it is rather a sign that yours is not the true Church, as appears thus: Christ hath foretold the obscurity and smallness of his Church in some after ages; he tells us that there shall be a general Apostasy and Defection from the Faith, 2 Thess 2.1. 1 Tim. 4. I read of a Woman, Revel. 12, and she is forced to flees into the Wilderness and I am told your own Expositors agree with us, that this is the church which flees from Antichrist into the wilderness, and secret places, withdrawing herself from persecution.   Is it true?

Pop. I must confess our Authors do take it so.” pg. 39-40

Pool emphasized Rev 13:8 where the vast majority worship the beast except for a few chosen invisible types in obscurity.

13. Pg. 73 are you seriously suggesting that the Divinity of Christ depends on the Judgment and Authority of the Church?

14. Pg. 82-88 the infallible assurance of the Roman Church is demolished.

15. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass

“Pop. It is true, there is but one Sacrifice as Redemption, and Expiation for Sin, and that -was the Sacrifice of the Cross; but there are other Sacrifices of Application to apply that to us.

Prot. I hope the Word and Sacraments, and Spirit of Christ, are sufficient to apply Christ’s Sacrifice. Must we have one Sacrifice to apply another? Whoever heard of one plaister made to apply another? or a ransome paid the second time to apply the former payment ? And you seem to me quite to forget your selves, to destroy the nature of your Sacrifice: for the business of a Sacrifice is oblation to God,. not application to men. Besides, I have one Argument more which fully satisfies me; If the Mass be a real and proper Sacrifice , then the thing sacrificed-must be really and properly destroyed.”

16. Page 114 Pool begins his criticisms of the Worship of Saints. To provide some historical references Phillip Schaff says,

“Thus much respecting the doctrine of Mary. Now the corresponding practice. From this Mariology follows Mariolatry. If Mary is, in the strict sense of the word, the mother of God, it seems to follow as a logical consequence, that she herself is divine, and therefore an object of divine worship. This was not, indeed, the meaning and purpose of the ancient church; as, in fact, it never asserted that Mary was the mother of the essential, eternal divinity of the Logos. She was, and continues to be, a created being, a human mother, even according to the Roman and Greek doctrine. But according to the once prevailing conception of her peculiar relation to deity, a certain degree of divine homage to Mary, and some invocation of her powerful intercession with God, seemed unavoidable, and soon became a universal practice.

The first instance of the formal invocation of Mary occurs in the prayers of Ephraim Syrus († 379)”. History of the Christian Church Vol. 3, Public Worship, Mariolatry: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.ix.html

Under the same Chapter in the Section titled The Worship of Martyrs and Saints Schaff says,

“The system of saint-worship, including both Hagiology and Hagiolatry, developed itself at the same time with the worship of Mary; for the latter is only the culmination of the former.”

History of the Christian Church Vol. 3, Public Worship,The Worship of Martyrs and Saints: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xi.html

17. Pool deals with the issue of worshipping images.

Psalm 5:7, Psalm 138:2

“Pop…we do not worship the Images, but only God by them, and in them; we worship them only as representations of God or Christ, etc. and the honour passeth from them to God.

Prot. That cannot acquit you neither, before God nor man. Micah and his Mother were’ guilty of Idolatry, yet the silver was dedicated to the Lord (Jehovah) to a graven Image, Judg. 13.3. also Judg. 18. 5,6. And the Israelites are charged with idolatry in the worshipping of the Golden Calf, Act.7.41.  1 Cor.10.7. And yet they could not be so brutish, as to think that Golden Calf, which they brought out of Egypt in their ear-rings., was that God which brought then out of Egypt with strong hand.

Pop. But they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.;

Prot. You use also to call an Image by the name of him whom it represents; you commonly say, this is the blessed virgin, or S. Matthew, &c. when you mean, ’tis only their Image; and so it cannot be strange to you that they express themselves in the same manner. Besides, Aaron himself proclaims the feast of the Calf in these words, Tomorrow is a feast to Jehovah.” pg. 124-125

A point arises: if they do not worship the image but God, this destroys their use of dulia. If it is God that requires the latria and yet they only worship him with dulia through the image they transgress their own laws.

18. Speaking of the Second Commandment the Popish priest says,

“Pop.  Then my first answer is, that this command was peculiar to the Jews, who were most prone to Idolatry.

Prot. This is not true. It sufficiently appears that the gentiles were under the obligation of this Law, from those punishments which God inflicted upon them, for their transgression or breach of it by idolatry.” pg. 129

Brian Scwertley wrote a great piece titled Political Polytheism where he says,

“In Deuteronomy 18 we are told that God drove the heathen nations out of their lands because He hated their false religions. “When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you” (Dt. 18:9-12). “These foreign offices and practices, which were an abomination to the Lord, were to be forbidden in Israel precisely because they were part of the reason for God’s judgment of the Canaanites, which would be seen in their ejection from the land. If the Israelites adopted similar practices, they too would become liable to ejection from the land.”10 One could argue that the main concern of this passage is false forms of revelation. But, are not all false religions and cults founded upon false revelations?
     In Isaiah 19 the prophet says that God will judge Egypt for its idolatry. “The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst” (Is. 19:1). The prophet Jeremiah says that God will bring judgment upon Egypt, Pharaoh and their false gods. “The LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, says: ‘Behold, I will bring punishment on Amon [a sun god] of No [ancient Thebes], and Pharaoh and Egypt, with their gods and their kings—Pharaoh and those who trust in him” (Jer. 46:25; cf. Is. 46:1). God singles out Amon the Egyptian chief deity of Thebes (No). “Amon was later merged with Re to become Amon-Re, the king of the gods and peculiarly the god of the rulers of Egypt.”11 Pharaoh who lays claim to divinity is also singled out. Is it not clear that Jehovah punishes idolatry even in non-covenanted nations?
     Jehovah, the only God, the Lord of the universe, hates religious pluralism. To Assyria God said, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is My indignation…. As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols, whose carved image excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria, as I have done to Samaria and her idols, shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols” (Is. 10:5, 10, 11)? God proclaimed judgment against Moab for idolatry. “‘Moreover,’ says the LORD, ‘I will cause to cease in Moab the one who offers sacrifices in the high places and burns incense to his gods’” (Jer. 48:35). Jehovah also crushed the idols of Babylon. “Declare among the nations, proclaim, and set up a standard; proclaim, and do not conceal it, say, ‘Babylon is taken, Bel is shamed. Merodach [or Marduk, a Babylonian god] is broken in pieces; her idols are humiliated, her images are broken in pieces…. A drought is against her waters, and they will be dried up. For it is the land of carved images and they are insane with their idols’” (Jer. 50:1, 2, 38). “Everyone is dull-hearted, without knowledge, every metalsmith is put to shame by the carved image; for his molded image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are futile, a work of errors; in the time of their punishment they shall perish…. Therefore behold, the days are coming that I will bring judgment on the carved images of Babylon; her whole land shall be ashamed, and all her slain shall fall in her midst…. ‘Therefore, behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will bring judgment on her carved images, and throughout all her land the wounded shall groan’” (Jer. 51:17, 18, 47, 52). If God so hated the idolatry of the Assyrians, Moabites, Egyptians, Babylonians and the inhabitants of Canaan that He poured out His wrath upon them, why should He exempt the inhabitants of America, Canada, or Great Britain, etc., for their idolatries? Political polytheism was a common practice in ancient nations—a practice condemned by God. There is no evidence in the New Testament that God has had a change of mind regarding idolatry.”

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/polytheism.htm

Moreover, Deut 5:8-9 does not just forbid the making of false gods  but any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the waters beneath the earth: 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me   Kjv

 Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God. Kjv

So we deny the making of any image IN ORDER TO WORSHIP IT and we forbid the MAKING of any image of the divine persons.

One is perfectly welcome to paint a picture of a great Christian but not to bow down, pray or worship it in any sort.

19. The Popish Priest defends his doctrine of salvation by works. He says,

“Pop. First then, I prove it hence, That Eternal Life Is called a reward, Matth. 5. 12. And given to Laborers in the Vineyard, Matth. 20.

Prot. We must compare Scripture with Scripture -, other places tell us- It is an Inheritance, Gal.4.7 Rom.8.17. The same estate cannot be mine both by inheritance and purchase.

Pop. Yes it may, I will  prove it by an instance, The glory which Christ had, was his by inheritance (for he was heir of all things) and yet by purchase, Phil. 2 8, 9.

Prot. I thank you for this Objection, I have scarce had any thing from you like a solid Argument, but this; it deserves an Answer. First then-, this will not reach our case: The great-‘ hindrance of merit in our works, is, that the best of them are imperfect, and a debt we owe to God before-hand; but Christ’s works are of another kind , they are complete and perfect, and in part no debt , for though when Christ was made Man, he was a debtor to God and bound as a Creature to fulfill the Law; yet this was a voluntary act, and no debt to God,: that he would become Man and so put himself under the Law. Besides, the dignity of his person made his works proportionable unto all the glory he received ; whereas all sufferings  are not worthy to he compared with our glory-Row. 8.i8. Secondly, It might be both an Inheritance and Purchase in Christ in divers respects, because he had two natures as he was God, or the Son of God , it was his Inheritance, and belonged to his Manhood only as united with the Godhead; as he was Man, he might purchase it, by what he did and suffered in the flesh: But in us there are not two natures, nor any of these pretences to merit. Moreover, Scripture speaks of two kinds of Rewards, the one of Grace, the other of Debt; and withall affirms, That the reward which God gives to good men, is merely of Grace ( as we profess) and not of Debt as you pretend) Rom. 4.4. ” pg. 161-162

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

20. Pool describes the reward to be of grace and not of debt. Pool continues,

“Pop. But God is said to reward men according to their works, that is, according to the proportion of them, and that implies merit.

Prot. Not so neither: for since God is pleased to reward in us his own gifts and graces, not our merits…Again, I may as well conclude the blind men merited their sight, because Christ saith, ‘Be it unto you according to your faith, Matth 9.29…” pg. 162-163

1 Chron 29: 14 But who am I and who are my people that we should be able to offer as generously as this? For all things come from You, and from Your hand we have given You.

 

Bishop Joseph Hall and Matthew Pool Answer Perry Robinson on Issues of Authority, by Drake Sunday, Jun 5 2011 

References: The Open Door by Perry Robinson

Serious Dissuasives From Popery (London: W.H. Dalton, 1843), by Bishop Joseph Hall, Archbishop Tillotson, and Jeremy Taylor

A Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, by Mattew Pool (London, Cockeril at the Atlas in Cornhill, 1676)

1. Perry Robinson says,

“If I can’t interpret the Bible for myself, because then I would go off into God knows what kind of darkness, then I need to be able to find and identify God’s Organization on Earth so I can rightly and authoritatively interpret the Bible.”

Is Perry’s attitude toward the Bible Christian? No, it is an innovation in the history of Christianity.

Chrysostom, 3rd Sermon on Lazarus

“Who is there, to whom all is not manifest, which is written in the Gospel? Who, that shall hear, Blessed are the meek, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the pure in heart, and the rest; would desire a teacher to learn any of these things, which are here spoken? As also the signs, miracles, histories, are not they known and manifest to every man? This pretence and excuse is but the. cloak of our slothfulness. Thou understandest not those things, which are written: how shouldst thou understand them, which wilt not so much as slightly look into them? Take the book into thy hand: read all the history; and, what thou knowest, remember; and, what is obscure, run often over it.”

Notice Chrysostom rejects the  argument of Robinson as if every doctrine of scripture was of equal difficulty as the interpretation of prophecy. Second, notice, Chrysostom does not suggest we go to the Church for a blind allegiance to ecclesiastical interpretation when we are faced with a difficult  passage of scripture. He says, “run often over it.”

John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Second Thessalonians

“What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because you are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? And yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in theScriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from whatProphet was the passage that was read? From what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me— you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, PL 43:429-430.

“Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen . . . Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.”

St. Basil, De Vera Fide et Moral. Reg.  72. c. 1. et reg. 80. C. 22.

“Without doubt, it is a most manifest argument of infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride, to introduce anything that is not written (in the Scriptures); …to detract from the Scriptures, or add anything to the faith, that is not there, is most vehemently forbidden”.

Let’s see Acts 8:

25 So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans. 26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:

   “HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;  AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,  SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.  33 “IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY;  WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION?  FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.”

 34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

The Eunuch was not saying that he did not understand the Bible at all. He did not say that he did not understand even the Chapter he was reading. He said that he did not understand how a specific passage was going to be fulfilled. In this case revelation was needed.  The New Testament was needed, not an over lording Magisterium.  Perry’s argument here is elementary.

2. Perry says again,

“But did God’s Organization interpret that passage for you to tell you what it means or did you interpret it on your own and your own authority?”

This is straight from hell and confutes the entire Christian religion. The Jewish Chief priests and elders said to Jesus,

 

Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

This is an interesting question because the Pharisees probed John’s authority to act in an ecclesiastical manner as well in John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

They could not tell. I ask you the same question sir:  Was John the Baptists’ Baptism from heaven or from men? If it was from heaven what empirical or Ecclesiatical authority did John offer? None. Where did John get the authority to do these things? Obviously it was not from the Jewish Magisterium.

In Acts 4:7 Peter is asked of his healing of the impotent man “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” His answer is the name of Jesus of Nazareth. No ecclesiastical or Magisterial reference here. No empirical proof.

What you are left with is taking your views of authority and trashing departing the Christian religion completely or abandoning your antichrist doctrines. See Matthew Pool, A Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, pg. 27.

“God’s organization” did not interpret the Bible right the first time. That is why John the Baptist had to come on the scene, be accused of having no Ecclesiastical authority, and prepare the way for the Messiah who also had no Ecclesiastical authority. If we have to take the interpretation of the Bible from the Organization, or Body Politic that gave us the Bible, then we have to take the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament and reject Christ. Moreover, what happens when someone is exiled like Joseph in a strange land where no organization exists? This is a huge problem; but not for us. On the Protestant view God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. Acts 10:34-35

3. Perry says,

“It seemed to finally dawn on the elder lady what had just transpired and she didn’t seem very happy. “Do you mean churches after the apostles died?” “Yes, those churches continued under the successors of the apostles, being various bishops that they appointed.” “But” she replied those churches all fell away and became corrupt and part of Satan’s organization!” “Huh” I said. “I am not sure I understand what you just said so let me see if you can help me to understand.” She nodded. “Are you saying that after the apostles died that all the churches they started they all fell away from the true faith? And that they all lost the right teaching and instead taught the doctrines of demons? And that they came under the control of the devil promoting false religion and idolatry in the world?” “Yes!” she exclaimed. “That is exactly what I mean.”

I rubbed my chin. “I guess I am only wondering about one thing then.” I waited a moment to draw them in. “What’s that?” They both asked. “Well, do you trust Satan?” They seemed not to get it. “Well of course not! That is silly! Satan is the father of lies so he can’t be trusted with anything.” The elder lady said. “Huh” I said, “Well, why do you use a group of books selected by Satan and his organization in the fourth century? That doesn’t seem very reasonable to me. I don’t think I could be associated with an organization that depends on Satan for its teaching. Could you? I mean, if you think the church fell away after the apostles died, and came under control of the devil, why would you trust an organization controlled by Satan to collect and preserve the right books and then hand them on to you? I don’t get it.” At that moment, the elder lady had a flash of insight and I could see it on her face. She couldn’t wait to let it blurt out.”

We do not take the Anchoretic Church to be run by the devil. Archbishop Tillotson, who co-authored Serious Dissuasives, with Hall admitted on pg. 67 that the Protestant Church owns the first four general councils. Matthew Pool, in his A Dialogue between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant on page 22-23 says the same. Perry says in an attempt to know which Organization is the right one,

“Whomever God entrusted and authorized to select the books of the Scriptures and canonize them, that would be a good way to identify God’s Organization. Did your organization do that?”

I completely agree that the people who chose the books of our canon were God’s organization at the time. I simply reject that this means I am committed to every theological opinion those men had. Moreover, I reject the idea that this Organization had any infallible promise of preservation.


%d bloggers like this: