Preservation of Scripture, Pt 1 (05/20/2001)

The Prophecy of Persecution and the Endurance of the Saints

Please turn with me to mark chapter 13 in verse 9 this morning. Mark chapter 13 in verse 9 and Good good number of Sundays ago. We cut a deal that that I would try to finish our Series of messages on the preservation of the scriptures with one more Sunday message.

And so this is it. And I want to speak to you this morning on the sovereign preservation of the Word of God through the blood of the true believers and Read with me if you would mark chapter 13 verse 9 Jesus said but take heed to yourselves for they shall deliver you up to councils and In the synagogues you shall be beaten and you shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake for a testimony against them and The gospel must first be published among all nations.

But when they shall lead you and deliver you up take no thought beforehand what you shall speak neither do ye Premeditate but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour that speak ye for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost.

Now the brother shall betray the brother to death and the father the son and the children shall rise up against their parents and shall cause them to be put to death and Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

But he that shall endure unto the end the same shall be saved. Let's pray father. We ask that you bless this message with anointing from on high. That you would bless it in such a way that it would affect the way we live the rest of our days here.

And we ask it in Jesus name. Amen. Well, this message Does deal with the Bible versions as you will see clearly. But it deals a lot with history. It deals a lot with the history of the very believers that Jesus was prophesying about.

That would be out in the future from his point of view as he made that statement. From our point of view much of that is in our past. Although there may be some of this coming again. We know that there will be a great deal of it during the tribulation period and there may be some of this even before the rapture of the church.

But we can see so much of it in the past. I don't know how many of you've ever read this book Fox's Book of Martyrs. But if you ever read it, it'll change your life. And it'll change your whole view of Christianity, it'll change your whole understanding of Roman Catholicism versus Protestantism.

It'll even change your definition of the word Protestant because It's interesting the way that the author of this book defines it. It simply means anyone who protested against the Roman Catholic doctrine.

So it included what we call as Protestants who came from Luther, but it also included People who were never from the Catholic Church. Such as the Waldenses and many people going all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

They were also called Protestants because they also protested against the Roman Catholic Church. So it uses a broader definition for the word Protestant and I'll probably use that definition for purposes today.

Just to make it easier to talk about so the word Protestant will be Defined in the way that Fox's Book of Martyrs defines it for purposes of this morning. It means anybody whether it were an Anabaptist or Lutheran or anybody who?

Protested the Roman Catholic Church. Now, let me go into the scriptures with you. This will be a Bible message, but it'll also include a lot of history the history that Jesus just told us about turn with me to Psalm 119 152 and Follow through these particular verses in the Psalms.

Psalm 119 152 concerning thy testimonies. I have known of old that thou has founded them forever. That states two things about the Word of God number one that it is secure Eternally and number two that it is settled by the counsel of God.

Before all time it was already settled and then turn to verse 89. Psalm 119 verse 89. It says forever. Oh Lord thy word is settled in heaven. This shows a third thing. Not only is the Word of God secure eternally.

Not only is it settled by the counsel of God before all time but also it was established before time began and it was established in its best state because the word Settled found in Psalm 119 verse 89 is the Hebrew word not sob, which means to be established in the best state so it cannot be improved upon and Then we go into Matthew 24 verse 35.

You can just listen because we're gonna stay in Psalms here I'm gonna give you a couple of verses from the New Testament. And then you can be turning to Psalm 12 in verse 6 while I'm doing that Matthew 24 35 Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Now notice that there are two ways that we speak of the word in the New Testament. The word can mean the word with a capital W, which means the Living Savior the Living Christ who is called the word in John chapter 1 in verse 1.

But also the word can be used to mean the written word. So we have the Living Word and the written word. Well now in in Matthew 24 35, we have the Living Word Jesus Christ. Speaking of the written word and the way we know that he's speaking not of himself.

But of the written word is that he uses the plural on the word words. So he says heaven and earth shall not pass away, but my words shall not pass away. I'm sorry seven heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This tells us that the Word of God is secure eternally. It is settled it established, but it is also Sure, it will not pass away. It is sure to be here first. Peter 123 says being born again not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever.

This seed is Incorruptible, which means it is pure. So it's secure it established. It's Settled it is sure and we see that it is the pure Word of God now into psalm 12 6 7 which Really launches us into the conclusion of this whole idea of the preservation of the scriptures.

Did God preserve the Bible and how if so, how did he do it? And if if he if he has a method can we discern what that method might be because there are many theories in The world today. In fact, the most popular theories that are out there I believe are false and I think we can see why as we move on into this conclusion Psalm 12 6 the words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth Purified seven times this furnace of earth is a picture of man Sinful man, although saved man.

It is a picture of the fact that the Holy God chose because he wanted to to use his people which are sinful people who have been saved and Made to be his people, but he chose to use his people. We are positionally perfect, but experientially we're not are we don't we make mistakes from time to time.

So you could say that humans by the very nature of being human we're Accident prone and we are prone to error and That's what this phrase furnace of earth pictures. Is that God used those of us who are built with dirt from the earth in?

This process of Giving the Word of God by inspiration, but also of preserving it down through the generations until today. So man has been used by God and this makes it even more miraculous. If you think about it because we are error prone and yet look what it says in this same passage.

The words of the Lord are pure words. They are as silver tried in a furnace of earth, but purified. Seven times who knows what seven means in the scriptures. There's a number of perfection. So it means that God is using human humans human agencies to preserve his word.

But that even so God has promised to purify this seven times. In his own way now look at verse 7. Thou shalt keep them. So even though humans are involved is God who protects the words. Oh Lord, thou shalt preserve them.

That means the words from this generation forever. So we see then that the Word of God by promise of God is secure eternally. It is settled by the counsel of God. It is established in its best state before the foundation of the world.

It is the sure Word of God. It is the pure Word of God is the protected Word of God and he has promised that it shall be preserved to each generation. We'll discuss the phrase to each generation a little bit later on in the message.

Competing Theories of Manuscript Transmission

Let me now kind of sum up the different theories that we've talked about and I'll use a three different scholars and use their Words to describe this. The first is a man named Clark who wrote in 1926 his theory was that the Western type of Manuscript came first and by this he means the those that deal more with the Roman Catholic type manuscript that the Western type manuscript came first and the Alexandrian which if you remember is the Egyptian from the Egyptian scholars like origin who used almost the same scientific scholarly approach that the modern scholars use.

But he said that the Western type was first and the Alexandrian scholars copied it omitting some of the Western readings. Now a man named Ropes in 1926 wrote this he said the Alexandrian type came first.

And then the Western copied it and added to it. Now. Let me ask you. How could you prove which one of those two men was right? 2 ,000 years later, it'd be difficult and then a man named Dean Burgeon. Well, he was a Dean and his name was Burgeon.

Who wrote in 1813 or he lived from 1813 to 1888? He wrote this. The Syrian text was first. Now the Syrian text is that type of text that is Behind the received text which the King James Version comes from now in this study, I want to be quick to reemphasize that We are talking primarily about the received text the Greek manuscripts not about the English King James Version.

Because it is a translation in a version. But we're talking about the text behind it. Versus the text behind the other versions. That's what the whole discussion is about. Now Dean Burgeon is one of the greatest Men that I think the most eloquent men who wrote in favor of the received text.

Which was always favored by the entire world up until his lifetime. And then it came in question. And so the battle went on at that point. He stated that the Syrian text was first in other words the one that the received text Comes from that line of manuscripts that it was first and the Alexandrian scribes subtracted from it which gives us our modern American Standard Version and revised Standard Version and The Roman scribes added to it which gives us our Latin Vulgate and the Douay and Reims Catholic Bibles.

That was his theory. I've read a little bit about all these theories. I've probably read the most about the burgeons because I happen to believe his logic is better than everything else that I've read.

But those are the three theories now others such as Scrivener Miller Hills and many several from Dallas Theological Seminary are Also in agreement with burgeons position that the received text Cut stems back from the Syrian text which came first and that the others changed it.

Now that is not the modern theory. But that is burgeon's theory and several modern scholars out of DTS agree with him on that as do I myself I Agree that burgeon if you study what he said You will find that he never claimed that the received text that he knew for a fact that that was the Word of God as some of the modern King James only people like to say The Word of God and you know He never made that claim.

What he said was is that you have not proven to me that you have Improved on what we've had down through the thousands of years. That's what he told Westcott and Hort you have not proved the burden of proof is on you and you have not proven that your Text is better.

In fact burgeon was very humble in his statement because his books just tore it up. If you read his writings, it just tears up the theories of Westcott and Hort and those who gave us our modern Bibles.

Well, it's interesting that the Alexandrian text comes from Egypt that the Western text comes from Rome and the Syrian text comes from Antioch and I won't go into that because you may think well that has no bearing on it but if you read what the book of Revelations says about the mother of harlots Which is the Roman Catholic Church based in Rome and if you read what the scriptures say in many places.

But especially verse like a revelation 11 8th where it calls Egypt a picture of the world and then you look you see what the Bible talks about Antioch and Acts chapter 11 verse 26. It's the place where they were first called Christians and the first missionaries were sent out from there.

Also, there are at least three scholars that I have found who claim in their books that the majority of the original autographs which means the originals. Were in Asia Minor and in this part of the world in the area of Asia Minor in Syria.

There's a man named Harnack who wrote a book called the origin of the New Testament who claims this. Man named Goodspeed who wrote the foundation of the New Testament who claims this and in Kilpatrick who wrote a book on the origin of the gospel according to Matthew all claimed that the originals ended up in this area of Antioch where the Syrian text came from.

Also found a very interesting article just this week as I continued my study on this I just keep finding more and more new things and it just literally blows your mind the amount of information that's out there.

But I found a very interesting article by a man named dr. George M Lamsa who speaks about the the the Syrian Bible that came from this part of the world a fascinating article he claims that The originals were not that the originals actually were not written in Greek.

I have another friend who believes that too sitting on the back pew back there. Because that was not the language that the Jews probably would have written the scriptures in and so. All of this debate is we've got to find the Greek text that goes back to the originals.

It probably was not even a Greek text. But now no one hardly would agree with that, but there are a few scholars out there including a couple of books that have been written indicating that they were more in the Type of lettering that the Jews wrote in rather than in the Greek so we have all this huge volumes of information.

And what I want to do This morning is number one to prove that this battle is not a new battle. We could call it the battle of the Bibles. It's not a new battle. It is not a battle. That's primarily between Westcott and Hort and a man named burgeon.

It's not a battle. That's primarily between the Nestle Alland group and the Dallas Theological Seminary scholars who disagree with them as a matter of fact. It is a battle between the Catholic Bible of the Dark Ages and the Protestant and and slash Baptist but really as I said earlier If you get into some of the scholars who really write on those times, they're all called Protestants.

But what the word Protestant did not mean that they came out of the Catholic Church. It meant that they simply protested against the Catholic Church. So it includes all of them and So we get into this.

It was actually a battle between the Catholic Bible of the Dark Ages and the Protestant Bible of the Enlightenment. Now I aim to prove that this morning and what another thing this is going to do is going to show us that That all that Westcott and Hort did was that they deceitfully Caused or tricked the Protestant world into accepting a Catholic Bible.

Are all the modern versions fall in that line that that come far closer to matching the do a version? Which is the Catholic Bible which comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Which has always been the Catholic Bible in the modern versions match that more than they do the Protestant Bible it comes down through the ages that will trace in just a moment a Study of history and a comparison of the do a version of the Bible.

Which is Jerome's Latin Vulgate with the King James which the English version of the old? Latin which is called the Atala by the scholars is what I aim to use this morning to give further proof proof.

So we're going to kind of move away from this because I have found this to be true. No modern scientific approach to textual criticism is going to present us a better Bible than the received text. Now I'm going to show you why I believe that now.

I will say that's my personal belief. It is not an authoritative statement by your pastor and you're free to disagree with it and some of you will and that's fine. Some of you won't some of you'll do further study and may agree later.

I don't know or or I may do further study and and agree with you later. So it cannot be an authoritative statement, but I'm going to tell you after some Hours and hours and days of study this year plus all that I did back in the early 80s.

And some of the new material that I've read that wasn't even in existence back then has convinced me that the modern Scientific approach to textual criticism which all of our modern Bibles came from is not and has not and will never give us a better Bible than what you got in your lap this morning and I'll tell you why I think that is.

I don't think that was God's plan for how to preserve the Bible in Psalm 12 6. He talks about his words. He says that they that Thou shalt keep them in verse 7. Oh Lord thou shalt preserve them from this generation and forever.

Well, it's interesting here that the word Preserve means to guard. So it is God's job to guard his word and preserve it. Also the word Keep means to hedge about and to attend to which means that God has actively played a part From day to day year to year down through the ages in keeping the Word of God pure.

He did not just leave it up to men of flesh, although he used us. But he also actively was working in it together with us as he does in all things whether it be our prayer life. Whether it be our witnessing whether it be our Bible study in all areas.

It's just the same. He used the same method to keep to keep the Word of God Pure through the generations and now I want us to focus on this word generation just for a moment because this is kind of the reason that I have Come up with my own theory.

I Don't believe the modern scientific approach is what God used. I believe that God said he would promise to keep his words and preserve them from this generation. Well, you have to ask when what generation is this speaking of.

Well, it was whenever psalm 12 was written. So it certainly goes back before Westcott and Hort. It certainly goes back before burgeon. It goes back before Trigellus it goes back before all of these great scholars that we've read about.

It goes back even before the times of Jesus Christ on this earth and his first advent and the Apostles into the days when David was writing and it says that God promised to guard to attend to and to preserve his word from this generation.

The gender. The word generation in the Hebrew is door the word door, which means a revelation of time. But according to Thayer it literally means those living during that period. So it literally means that God promised to keep his word pure from that generation.

Down through the generations. Now if that's true, then that tells me that Westcott and Hort did not invent the perfect Bible. Nor did they improve upon it? He has kept his words for his people. Now. What method do we think that he used?

The Church as Guardian of the Truth

Well, I think if we look in 1st Timothy chapter 3 and verse 15 will get a clue and we look at places like Revelation 5 10 and 2nd Timothy 2 2. I Believe we get a clue about God's method although I think a lot of it is a mystery to me at this time and.

And I could spend the rest of my life studying this and and I would wonder if at the end of that I would be More sure than I am now. I 315 says but if I tarry long That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.

Which is the church of the Living God the pillar and ground of the truth. I Believe that God has called the church the bride to be the protector of the truth and of his word. Revelation 5 10 says and has made us unto our God kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth someday.

2nd Timothy 2 2 says that commit some to faithful men who are able to teach also as Paul instructed Timothy commit these things to faithful men who are able to teach also. I Think that just as in the Old Testament God used the priestly order to protect the Old Testament scriptures and notice there's no debate today about that.

We don't even discuss the Old Testament much when we talk about the preserved Word of God because everybody knows how God used us the priestly scribes To preserve it, but I believe he did the same thing in the New Testament in a different way though.

I Think he used the priestly order. It's just that there was not a physical priestly order. It was the priesthood of the believers. I Believe he used his people. I believe God used the church and by that I mean the true born-again blood-bought church.

Not anything that claimed to be the church such as much of the Roman Catholic history claimed to be the church. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the true church that had real believers in it.

I believe that's what God used to preserve his word. I believe when they got through preaching from a Bible and it began to get be tattered as it may have been handed down from one man who preached to the next young preacher and It's so tattered that they would take that out and several of them would recopy it and then they'd bury the old one and The people that say well, this is not the most ancient manuscript is because the ones that got used got buried out of reverence that's why you're not going to find them and So to have a theory that says that the the truest Manuscript would be the oldest one that we can find is sort of ridiculous when we look at the history of how the church Preserved the word.

The Waldensian and Protestant Bible Line

Now I'd like to trace the Word of God Through European history up until today and this won't take as long as you might think it's just a little summary. What was the sovereign providence of God and how did he work to preserve his word specifically the New Testament?

How did he work to preserve a line of Greek manuscripts? That would bring us a Bible that we can rely upon today. That even those who have translated the New American Standard have claimed that the King James version Which is based on the received text is the most accurate English version.

There is on the planet well the received text which is what we'll use to to call This line of manuscripts now. I don't I want to use it in a in a broad definition. Not a specific one of what the received text actually is, but I want to use this as a broad definition of the line of manuscripts that comes into line with the King James Bible or the received text behind it and Matches it as opposed to the Roman Catholic Jerome Latin Vulgate type Bible that the new modern versions match more closely.

This received text had authority enough to become either in itself or by its translation the 2nd century Bible of the great Syrian Church of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy about 400 AD of the Gallic Church in southern France from 400 to 1000 AD of the Celtic Church in Scotland in Ireland as well as the official Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church.

All these churches were in opposition to the Church of Rome and At a time when the received text and these Bibles the other Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals and I quote David Otis Fuller in a book which he wrote called which Bible This Bible was different from the Bible of the Waldenses.

He's talking about the Latin Vulgate, which is now the do a version of the Catholic Church. This Bible was different from the Bible of the Waldenses so you can go back in history as far back as 1000 AD even back to 400 AD and you can see that the Catholics of that day knew that the Bible which the Bible believing people were using was a different Bible and I'm going to give you some proof of that as we go this morning and Much of the battle between the two groups centered around the Bible that was being used the text the Greek text that was being used which was Different.

It was not the same in Fact lies were lost because of it this Bible was different from the Bible of the Waldenses and as a result of this difference the Waldenses and later the Scottish and English believers were the object of hatred and cruel persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholics.

Certainly wasn't the only reason but it was one of the reasons in history bears this out in Studying this history. We shall see how That these manuscripts that are behind the Protestant Bible how it was possible for the pure manuscripts Not only to live but actually to gain ascendancy in the days of the true Apostolic churches and later in the Protestant world in the face of powerful opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, let's trace this a little bit. Let's go back to the early Greek Church. It's interesting that even Hort of Westcott and Hort fame and I'm going to quote him here. But even he agrees that the Syrian text was the received text of the Protestant world.

It is no wonder Mr. Hort says that the traditional Constantinoplean text which is this Antiochian slash received text whether formally Officially or not was the Antiochian text of the 4th century. It was equally natural that the text recognized at Constantinople should eventually become in practice the standard New Testament of the East.

Now this means that the Eastern Orthodox Church used a different text Than what Westcott and Hort were about to bring back into the world and different from what the Roman Catholics used in the Jerome Latin Vulgate Bible.

Now let's move from the early Greek Church to the early Syrian Church, which to me is the most fascinating and I'll promise I'm gonna do more private research. I won't I won't give you the burden of having to to hear much of it.

At least not anytime soon. But I'm going to be studying the Syrian Church and its manuscripts its versions of the Greek text. It was at Antioch the capital of Syria that believers were first called Christians and the first Missionaries were sent out and you'll find this in Acts 11.

It is generally admitted that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syria in about 150 AD now that was stated by David Otis Fuller in his book. However, there are scholars today who are studying and writing books about the fact that they don't believe it happened that way.

They do not believe it was translated from Greek to Syrian about 150 AD. They believe that it was in the originals it was in a the Syrian language or the a Syrian language and their letterings and That that later was translated into Greek the language of the world.

Which was not the language that the Jewish scholars would have written in now the Aramaic language in the Hebrew language if you go back to the roots. They're very very similar if you trace it back far enough and the lettering is very similar and so forth many believe that Jesus and the Apostles spoke and wrote in these types of letterings and probably they did not write in the Greek or.

It's a very very good argument. But what's interesting about it is it confutes all of the modern scholarship that says you had to have a Greek original. They really don't know if it was Greek. But we do know that this Syrian version is one of the oldest versions of the Bible on the planet.

It's called the peshito or some call it the peshita and The word peshita means the correct the simple it generally follows the received text that your King James Version came from and Is it variants with Jerome's Latin Vulgate which the modern versions tend to match?

The Christianity which first penetrated Syria northern Italy southern France and Great Britain was not Roman Catholicism, but apostolic Christianity. The first missionaries were not Roman Catholic but were from Palestine and Asia Minor and the Greek New Testament which they brought with them or its Translation into Syrian or Latin were of the type of the Protestant Bibles that are more similar to the King James Bible in the English the Lutheran German Bible and Others these differed greatly.

These differed greatly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Yusubio origin Greek New Testament. This is written by a man named TV more who wrote a book called the cul-de-church. Which goes back and traces these ancient? Protestant groups and I hate to use the word because to us as Baptist we've read the trail of blood.

Which says that Baptists go back through the walled-in seas and all the way back to the apostolic times. Actually, they don't. You can trace them back to the Anabaptists. But the point is that you can trace a group of believers who were anti Catholic.

They were Protestants they protested the Catholic movement and They also Baptized by immersion not by the sprinkling of the Catholics and later on even Martin Luther couldn't get away from that and So you can trace these things back and what's interesting is the Bibles were different.

Early England, France, and the Persecuted Bible Believers

Now let's go into early England when the Pope sent Augustine. This is not the same Augustine as the scholar that Martin Luther used to study. Who? Predated this. There was another Augustine who was sent to England in the year 596 ad he conspired with the pagan Anglo-saxons in their armies to exterminate the pious Christians.

We find this in a book called historic memorials of Canterbury by a man named Stanley. Dr. Adam Clark claims that Irish customs reveal elements imported from Asia Minor. Did you hear that? From the Antioch area that part of the world from these early Christians.

Dr. Adam Clark in a book called in his commentary on Matthew makes the point that the there are Irish Customs that can be traced all the way back to Asia Minor not really from England. Or from the Western world in Italy France and Great Britain once provinces of Rome.

The first translations of the Bible were Latin. These Latin translations of the primitive churches were in existence before Rome sent missionaries toward the West in 250 AD. These people for centuries Refused to exchange their old Latin Bibles for the Catholic Vulgate, which was Jerome's Bible.

Now, did you hear that? There was an old Latin and there was a Jerome's Latin that the Roman Catholic Church used and they were different and these people refused to give up their old Latin versions of the Bible.

Just Jacobus said that Quote the old Latin versions were used longest by the Western Christians. Who would not bow to the authority of Rome? Do you see how a lot of these persecutions? Dealt with the Bible version they were using a lot of people never mentioned this but and it's not that easy to find.

But it is in the literature if you look for example the Donatists the Irish in Ireland Britain and the continent and the Albigen sees etc. These people were persecuted for not giving up their ancient Latin versions and and refusing to use Jerome's Latin Versions.

This was in a book called the Catholic and Protestant Bibles compared by Jacobus we Let me give you a quote from a book called the influence of the Bible on civilization. This is an amazing quote. We do not enter here into the difficult question of relations between the newly founded Anglo-saxon Church and the old Iroh Scottish Church, although you can find those difficulties in this book right here.

Because difficulty is a nice word for it when you see how they were slaughtered and I'll give you a bit of that in a few moments. We do not enter in here to that discussion. Differences of the Bible text had something to do with the pitiful Struggles which arose between the churches and ended in the devastation of the older one.

Did you hear that. Now that's a direct quote from a book called the influence of the Bible on civilization and This man didn't have any particular bent either direction on which Line was the right line.

He was not commenting on that. He was simply pointing out that much of the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church Against the Protestants was because the Protestant had a different Bible. Going way back way back in history before what we call Protestants.

You know, we when we think of the word Protestant we think of Martin Luther and forward but there were Protestants going back all the way to 300 AD because they protested against the Roman Catholic Church.

British missionaries carried the light of the gospel to the Netherlands France, Switzerland, Germany. Yeah. Even into Italy and did more for the conversion of Central Europe than the half enslaved Roman Catholic Church ever did.

That's in a book called the history of the Sabbath. Now let's move from England into France in 177 AD now that goes back pretty far 177 AD only 77 years after the Apostle John went to heaven. The last time he went to heaven in 177 AD the Gallic Christians in France were frightfully mass massacred by the heathen.

The survivors wrote a record of the events and sent it not to the Pope of Rome. But to their brethren in Asia Minor the Antioch Syrian part of the world. Isn't that interesting? These Protestants all the way back to 177 AD.

Were being slaughtered and they sent letters not to the Pope not to the Roman Catholic Church. But to their brothers in the area of Antioch now. You can go through and you can study the Virgin areas which date back to a thousand AD which were a group of people who followed a preacher named Peter Brewis.

Who wrote a book called the Antichrist and in this book, he said that the Pope was the Antichrist. He lived in France. You can go just a little bit later into history to about 1147 and you see a group called the Henir isians who followed a man named Henry of Toulois in France and.

These people were called the Apostolic by the Roman Catholics because they were more like the Apostolic Church to me. That's a favorable term. But to them it was a hateful term and then that brings us to a man who is most known probably Named Peter Waldo who lived in Lyon, France who wrote vigorously against the Pope and and The Roman Catholic movement and this is where the name Walden sees came from.

They were the followers of this Pastor. There was also a famous character who came about this same time period. Named Dominique and how many of you have ever heard of the Dominican friars? And they don't cook fried chicken there.

They're monks. Roman Catholic monks down through history. They have been the most hateful persecutors of born-again believers. Slaughtered thousands and thousands of Protestant believers the Dominicans did.