Home » Posts tagged 'history' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: history
The Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius Baptist Succession Quote: Is it Legitimate?
The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll, which we commended in a recent Friday’s post, contains the following quote by Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent, Stanislaus Hosius:
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers. (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112-113).
This Hosius quote is widely reproduced in other Baptist literature contemporary with Carroll. However, many non-Baptists have attacked it as illegitimate. For example, Catholics like to claim that Hosius never said anything like this. Other sources also claim Hosius never said it. Even some sincere Baptists–who, unfortunately, clearly did not know Latin–have said he never said it.
One of the problems with the quotation is that standards for citation in past centuries were not the same as they are now. “Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113” is very hard to trace. Furthermore, when Carroll wrote the Trail of Blood, citations did not necessarily have to include “…,” bracketed letters when capitalization was changed, and so on; it was acceptable and widely practiced to slightly paraphrase quotations. What Carroll and many Baptists in his day wrote was a proper citation back then, but it should be more properly cited now–that is, if it is legitimate. Is it?The answer is Yes! The Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent Stanislaus Hosius definitely did make a statement to this effect. Baptists should have no qualms whatever with citing this leading Roman Catholic as evidence of their ancient heritage, far, far before Protestantism. Those who deny that he ever said it do not seem to have taken the time to investigate the matter properly or were ignorant of Latin. (Perhaps a good reason to learn Latin, no?) What they should do, though, is cite the quote in a manner that suits the 21st century. Here is an accurate citation of Cardinal Hosius–this is the quote to use:
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. . . . If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued, and cut off with the knife of persecution.
This translation comes from Richard Shacklock’s translation of Hosius’ Latin in a work entitled The Hatchet of Heresies: A Most Excellent Treaties of the begynnyng of heresyes in oure tyme, compiled by the Reuerend Father in God Stanislaus Hosius, etc. (Antwerp: Aeg. Diest, 1565; Ann Arbor: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2011), 44-49.You can find the original Latin Shacklock is translating in Stanislai Hosii S. R. E. Cardinalis, Episcopi Varmiensis, In Concilio Tridentino Legati Opera Omnia Hactenus Edita, In Unum Corpus Collecta (Venice: Apud Franciscum Francisci, 1632), 203, sec. De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis. Here is a screenshot of the Latin text
If you know Latin, you can see the quotation near the top of the page.So the quotation about Baptist succession by Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius is absolutely accurate, and he certainly did say it. Those who deny that he said it failed to research the matter properly.If you would like to read the quote in greater context, or see links to the places where you can get Shacklock’s translation of Hosius or Hosius’s original Latin, please read my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context” by clicking here. I supply lots and lots of context. So you can use the Cardinal Hosius quote–shout it from the housetops. Just cite it correctly so people do not have a reason to doubt its accuracy.Scripture teaches Baptist church polity and Scripture teaches an actual succession of churches from the first Baptist church, organized by Christ from those baptized by the first Baptist–John the Baptist–the greatest man who had lived other than Christ up to that time (Matthew 11:11). External historical data, such as the testimony of Cardinal Hosius to Baptist succession, support the infallible truth of Scripture, which proves that Baptist churches are the churches of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior during His earthly ministry and preserved from that time until the present day. All other religious organizations that claim the name of Christian, unfortunately, are more akin in God’s eyes to the Roman Catholic whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) and her Protestant daughters (Revelation 17:5) than to the pure bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5). If you are reading this and have not been born again, you should immediately repent and believe the gospel, being justified by faith alone apart from works. Then immediately attend, be baptized into and serve the Triune God in a faithful independent, unaffiliated Baptist church–the kind Christ started in the first century, the kind for which He loved and died and His bride (Ephesians 5:25). If, by His grace, you love Christ, you must and will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
The Lie or Deceit of the Warfare or Conflict Model Between Science and Faith
True science proceeds from faith. The historical record shows that modern science arose from faith in God. Science and faith harmonize. They don’t conflict.
Like the tearing down of statues in the United States, the elimination of genders unto gender fluidity, and the revisionism of patriarchy as social construct, secular materialists banish faith from the public square by falsifying the true story of faith and science. The false narrative, useful for dethroning God in the hearts of men, says Newton’s science triumphed despite and hindered by his faith. His belief slowed his work. The actual narrative would read something like the following: man’s thinking, human reasoning, implausible speculation, superstition, darkness, little to no scientific progress, publication and propagation of scripture, motivation to know God through His creation, observation, scientific method, discovery and progress (subduing and having dominion).
Whatever scientific progress continues is built upon the foundation of biblical creationists of the past and borrowing from and imitating their work, even if it is separate from faith. The riddance of faith portends to future regression, even as we see this trend and trajectory already. For instance, without the faith in the invisible hand, the world economy is headed back to something more feudalistic.
Faux historians produced the science and faith warfare or conflict model in the late 19th century and this myth, legend, or figment of imagination burrowed itself deep into the psyche of Western civilization. It isn’t history. It is a philosophical presupposition of naturalism masquerading as science. Stephen Meyer writes about this in his most recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis.
Most science historians report the fideistic beginnings of modern science. The founders believed in God and their faith buttressed their work. A few men told a completely different story, John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1880) and Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Commenting on this happening, historian Edward Larson writes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book that “they fostered the impression that religious critics of Darwinism threatened to rekindle the Inquisition. . . . Christianity and Science are recognized by their respective adherents as being absolutely incompatible; they cannot exist together; one must yield to the other; mankind must make its choice—it cannot have both” (Summer for the Gods: The Scope’s Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, pp. 21-22). These above two books helped or aided to fix in the amassed minds that science and faith were at war with one another and always have been. Their lie displaced or deposed actual history. Now it is very, very difficult to dislodge.
The warfare or conflict model buttresses the uniformitarian template that man lives in a closed system without supernatural or divine intervention. It eliminates design with everything occurring according to chance. This view cancels God, His authority over and judgment of mankind. Man gets to live like he wants, because nobody’s going to do anything about it. Many if not a majority of professing Christians now at least surrender to this viewpoint, clashing with the Bible and a true, historical account.
PATAS, Philippine Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Society) Debate live: Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels? Ross / Maisonet
I am pleased to inform What is Truth? readers that the Thomas Ross – Benjamin Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?” is now live and can be watched on YouTube.
Click here to watch the Ross-Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?”
The debate took place in Manila, Philippines, in 2019, where I was teaching a class on the preservation of Scripture and preaching for Bro Billy Hardecker of Mt. Zion Baptist Mission in Manila, but issues with the audio and video lining up kept the debate from going live until now. The quality is still not absolutely amazing, but considering the non-first-world setting and the equipment used, I am thankful for the quality that is present. Mr. Maisonet was (and I assume still is) the president of the Philippine Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Society), or PATAS. He told me that he replaced the previous president because that person had been stealing money from the organization. Atheism and agnosticism are much less common in the Philippines than they are in the United States, which may be one reason that the president of PATAS was born in the United States and moved to the Philippines. In any case, Mr. Maisonet, as the president of PATAS, was a good representative of atheism in the Philippines. He made the sort of popular-level arguments that one will run across in personal evangelism, rather than the more scholarly type of arguments against the accuracy of the New Testament made by Islamic apologists such as Shabir Ally. I confess that I did not find his argumentation particularly convincing, but he seems to have thought he made a good case, and I will allow those who watch the debate to evaluate what was said based on facts and logic in God’s world.
The PATAS debate was set up at short notice, so I employed a lot of the material from my debate with Dr. Ally on “The New Testament Picture of Jesus: Is It Accurate?” which is also in my study on evidence for the New Testament from archaeology, prophecy, and history. In my view, which is admittedly biased in favor of God and His Word, the arguments made for the historicity of the New Testament have now stood up well against both Muslim and atheist apologists.
Feel free to subscribe to my KJB1611 YouTube channel,”like” and comment on the debate, and share it with others, if you believe it deserves it. Also, if you would be interested in sponsoring a debate with a non-Christian philosophy or a pseudo-Christian cult, please contact my church.
–TDR
The King James Bible: Too Hard to Understand?
“The King James Version is too hard for people to understand! It is written in Old English. Therefore, we need to use a modern Bible version that is easier to understand.”
Is this true?
Before dealing with the most important question–what Scripture says on the subject–a few brief words on a secondary but related question.
The King James Version: Is it Old English?
First, the King James Version is not in Old English. Old English is the language of Beowulf. If you want to hear Old English, watch this:
Is the King James Bible easier to understand than that?
Maybe the King James is Middle English if it isn’t Old English. Here is someone reading from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, which was written in Middle English:
Here you can probably make out something here and there, but it is clear that the King James Version is not in Old English, nor is it in Middle English. It is much easier to read than the Canterbury Tales. (Side note: I enjoyed my college class on Chaucer’s classic at U. C. Berkeley.) The King James Bible is in early modern English. English has changed less between 1611 and today than it did from the days of Chaucer in the 1400s to the KJV.
So the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in modern English–early modern English. That does not mean, however, that it is necessarily easy to understand. Perhaps it really is “too hard,” and we should overlook the fact that the New King James Version is soft on sodomy, removes “hell” from 22 verses in the Bible, replacing it with easier words to understand, and ones that are in common use, like “Sheol” and “Hades” (2 Samuel 22:6; Psalm 18:5; Matthew 11:23, etc.), is not actually translated from the same underlying language text, and contains other problems. Maybe since the King James Bible is “too hard” to understand we need to just deal with these sorts of problems in the NKJV.
“Too hard”: What is it?
Biblically, what does it mean that language is “too hard” to understand? In the New Testament, the Greek of the book of Hebrews is much harder to read than the Greek of the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Luke and Acts are harder to read than 1 John. Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. Why did the Holy Ghost dictate such long sentences? Wouldn’t they be too hard to understand?
The vast majority of people in the first century were simple rural people; farmers, shepherds, and the like, not highly educated urbanites. Literacy was sketchy in many places. What was Paul doing when he wrote Hebrews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? What was Luke thinking? Didn’t they know that their Greek would be too hard to understand?
What about the Old Testament? Significant portions of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. Why did the Holy Spirit write hard Hebrew and hard Greek in some parts of the Bible? Shouldn’t it all have been easy to understand?
Is there more literacy in the English speaking world now than there was in the first century world of the New Testament, or in the world where God gave the Hebrew Old Testament? When was learning to read–or improving one’s reading level–easier? Surely now.
The question, then, should be: “Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel”? The King James seeks to replicate the syntax of the original language texts as much as possible. That is why every verse from Genesis 1:3 to Genesis 1:26 begins with the word “And”–we may not write that way in non-translation English, but the KJV accurately represents what the Hebrew given by the Holy Spirit says here. We can’t simplify the syntax of the King James Bible without moving it further away from the original language text. If we have to leave the syntax alone, does the King James Version have more archaic words than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament? There are over 680 hapax legomena or words that occur only one time in the Greek New Testament and close to 1,500 hapax legomena in the Hebrew Old Testament. While not all of those hapaxes would have been rare or archaic words to first century readers, many of them would have been. By way of contrast, there are nowhere near that many archaic words in the King James Version.
Evaluated by the standard of Scripture itself–by the standard of the Greek and Hebrew text God gave to His people–the English of the Authorized, King James Version is indubitably not “too hard.” People who claim that it is too difficult to read should be enthusiastically promoting the Defined King James Bible, which leaves the actual King James Version text unchanged but defines the few archaic words at the bottom of its pages for readers, or works such as David Cloud’s Way of Life Encylopedia of the Bible and Christianity, where all the rare KJV words are defined, instead of encouraging readers to reject the KJB’s fantastic translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus for corrupt modern Bible versions.
So is the King James Bible too hard to understand? If we employ the only objective standard–Scripture itself–the answer is “no.”
Learn more about Bibliology here.
–TDR
Recent Comments