How the Persecution of the Last Days Will be Unique

In Matthew 16, the Lord chastises the Pharisees for not understanding the signs of the times.

The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, testing Him, asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and overcast.’ O you hypocrites, you can discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” So He left them and departed.

-Matthew 16:1-4

And the Lord also chastises his own for not understanding scripture: 

From that time on, Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised on the third day. Then Peter took Him and began rebuking Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord! This shall not happen to You.” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things that are of God, but those that are of men.”

-Matthew 16:21-23

As this is Matthew 16, I’m inclined to believe it is a warning to the disciples as the future kings in Israel ruling over the restored Kingdom of Israel (Mt 19:28, Ac 1:6). This is also the chapter in which the Lord tells them he is going to Jerusalem to be put to death. They don’t believe him (BONUS: this is another reason we know “the gospel of the Kingdom” is not the gospel we preach today). They missed the signs of the coming Messiah. They didn’t understand the suffering servant. They didn’t see the death, burial, and resurrection until their understanding was opened after the resurrection (Luke 24).

They were chastised for missing all that.

We are told by Paul to look for the “epiphenea", (the sudden appearing of the Lord. This is not connected directly to the return of the King (the biblical event or the movie). Although, some things might occur simultaneously (the “falling away,” for example, could begin any time in earnest and keep growing). But that’s a matter of opinion… the greater point is that Paul did give us some things to look for:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of godliness [piety] but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. 

-2 Tim 3:1-9

I like this translation of verse 5:

They act as if they worshipped God, yet they do not let God's power work in their lives.

-2 Tim 3:5 (Worldwide English) 

So many professed Christians think God is impressed with their acts of piety. Yet God desires faithfulness. Many think God is pleased with their religious activities and fervor merely because they are religious acts. Yet God desires faith.

I believe the distinguishing characteristic of the last days in terms of the spiritual will be the rejection of those who hold to the true faith… and that rejection will come from those who claim they have the true faith.

It’s one thing to be persecuted by pagans or Muslims or communists… it’ll be quite a different thing when the persecution of those who hold to Christ alone will be done by those who claim the name of Christ and who claim to believe the same gospel. I believe we are already seeing this. I believe this is historically new and has never been seen on this scale in history. And it will only get worse.

The Catholic Church slaughtered its thousands (and celebrated those deaths with great pomp). A day is coming when many professed Christians, who claim the gospel of grace alone, will be in league with Rome to persecute and execute the few who will hold onto the gospel of Christ alone.

The Error in the Apostles' Creed

One of the sad ironies of the Evangelical community is the rejection of the foundational doctrine of Sola Scriptura (by the Scriptures Alone). We noted in a previous post how those hardcore Reformed believers at The Dissenter (formerly Reformation Charlotte) invoked "Sacred Tradition" (by name) in their ill-focused defense of church buildings.

The level of incredulity this former Catholic had when he read the words "Sacred Traditions" as a supposed defense of truth by heresy hunters like those at The Dissenter is off the charts. How far have we fallen? How much blood of believers has been shed over the truth of Sola Scriptura for even the most hardcore Reformed to invoke the Catholic doctrine of "Sacred Tradition" as defense of truth?

But there is another insidious error which permeates the professing church, the error of the so-called Apostles' Creed. It is held almost as if it's scripture, yet the very first line is heretical.

Jesus said no to the devil's offer, but the bishops of the Christian church in the fourth century said yes, and Christendom was born.

It's staggering how many people hold the "Early Church Fathers" essentially on the level of scripture. This exaltation of these corrupters of the faith is frightening, but it explains much of why many fail to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" and fail to understand the message of the Mystery revealed to Paul in Ephesians for this current age. Even Calvin himself questioned the ECF, something many of his followers refuse to do. 

As noted, the very first line of the creed is in error.

I believe in God the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth.

Scriptures teaches that all things were created by the Son.

his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 

-Col 1:13-17

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

-John 1:1-3

Etc.

Even Calvin understood this.

The design is, to show it to have been necessary that the restoration of mankind should be accomplished by the Son of God, since by his power all things were created 

-Calvin's Commentary on the Bible (John)

 

I challenge anyone who fellowships at an assembly of believers that uses the Apostles' Creed to point out this error to your pastor or to the elders. I'm almost certain that nothing will change, and "Sacred Tradition" and "Early Church Fathers" will be held as equal to or even above scripture itself.

For those keeping score at home, the Nicene Creed makes the same error. 

Addressing the "God Can Us It" Argument and Globalist Rome (The Chosen)

 So much is wrong in Christendom (the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians think they are participating in salvation by their works) and much of that error comes from careless and deceitful handling of the Word of God. Tens of millions of Catholics will watch The Chosen and not be moved one inch from their false faith (or commit to it even more). The gospel of the grace of God is not found in Matthew. Roumie is indoctrinating people into a false hope under a false gospel.

• The Purpose and Audience for the Four Gospels
• Beware Studies which Do Not Recognize the Differences in Scripture

I have noted previously that I was a HUGE fan of the 1977 miniseries, Jesus of Nazareth. I watched it every year, then on video. It did me no good. It didn't bring me anywhere near the gospel of grace. It only drove me further into the false gospel of the Roman Church.

Christians were PROMISED worship services breaking out in theaters when Men's Gibson's "The Passion" was released in 2004. We were promised a revival. All that has happened since 2004 is the decay of the West and a grand apostasy in the professing church. Catholics put Obama in office with a clear majority supporting him.

Many assume the audience for The Chosen TV and Movie series of our day is unbelievers. I'm certain part of the star of the series, Jonathan Roumie's, goal is recruiting for the Catholic Church from both Evangelical (Protestant) and unbelieving viewers. He essentially says that in interviews with Catholic media. 

No one, no matter how noble the cause might be, should be playing with what the Holy Spirit inspired. The writers of The Chosen (as with almost TV and film adaptations of scripture) play fast and loose with the texts as we saw in our last study. The goal is not accuracy and it is certainly not to bring viewers to a saving knowledge of the finished work of the Savior. Is it mere chance that Roumie's new Rosary app comes out at the height of the popularity of the series? An app that cost countless dollars to produce and maintain? It's all part of the strategy. a strategy we must recognize and expose.

image1220×822 129 KB

I don't have a problem with paraphrased Bibles as long as they present themselves as paraphrases. If The Chosen producers opened with a disclaimer that they are giving you their take and that some scenes and characters are fictional and that the events depicted do not necessarily reflect the inspired texts, then, perhaps, it would be OK as the viewer is warned and encouraged to read for himself. But they present the series as accurate.

But that is not what Mel Gibson or Jim Caviziel (who played Christ in The Passion) or Roumie are about. They are about proselytizing. And they're not shy about it if people would just watch them and listen to them. Caviziel was a bit slick when he was on the speaking tour for The Passion. He would not allow his meetings with Catholics to be recorded without consent. He did not make this a requirement for Evangelical groups.

Can the Lord use The Chosen? Sure. But that can be said of a lot of things. The Lord used a Monkees concert in my testimony. Doesn't mean I'm going to endorse anything or claim anything is "Christian" in the off-chance He does use it. Paul was sent to Gentiles. The Lord in Matthew states that converseley he was NOT sent to Gentiles and neither does he send his twelve disciples to Gentiles. Paul has our gospel and it is not The Gospel of the Kingdom. To preach the Gospel of the Kingdom today is to preach "another gospel," a gospel that Paul did not preach. It will bring a curse. (Gal 1:8-9)

Believe it or not, I actively got out of my ministry to Catholics because I saw so little fruit. I was far more effective working with youth and unbelievers. But it feels like God keeps dragging back to them. And I feel like I have to warn people about them.

I'm no Paul, but Paul warned against going back to the Law and he warned Gentiles against "the concision" in his Post-Acts ministry. Atheists are less of a threat to believers than Religionists. Religionists abandoned Paul (2 Tim 1:15). Jonathan Roumie, Jim Caviezel, Mel Gibson, Mark Wahlberg, Tim Ballard, etc. all have confidence in the flesh. "Satan presents himself as an angel of Light" and "it is therefore no wonder his ministers are the ministers of righteousness." Atheists don't have the numbers, power, influence, or money Rome has. Nowhere near it!

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you indeed is not grievous to me, but it is a safeguard for you. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the Concision. For we are the Circumcision who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

Roumie is working for Rome.

[Roumie] gets hundreds of testimonies of people changed by the series, including coming back to the [Catholic] church.
-The Catholic Review

Another fan of the show is discerning priesthood, “and he said this (show) has had a direct impact. So glory to God! It’s just that. It’s incredible how much of an impact a television show can have on a person."

I get the occasional complaint that I focus too much on what Rome is doing. I used to think that too. But now I think of it this way:




Biggest, richest, most powerful globalist kid on the block. They've got their meat hooks in everything, including The Chosen.

We Must Observe the Events in Scripture in their Timing and Context (The Chosen)

 The popular TV show, The Chosen, is like many other films and shows based (loosely) on scripture. Almost all of these visual depictions are made by religionists and not by believers. Yes despite these two glaring problems, many are taken in by the dramatic scenes and visual wonderlands set before them. Too often discernment is cast aside for emotion. 

Almost always, these movies and shows play fast and loose with scripture. They pay little attention to the origin of the account (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John), the sequence and timing of the events, or to the exact people involved. They necessarily have to impose an interpretation (to one degree or another) on the texts used. This last would fine if they were upfront about it. But they just present their presentation as a factual and indisputable depiction.  

The healing of the Gentile Centurion's servant is in Matthew 8. When the Lord sends out the twelve to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4, Matthew 9) in Matthew Chapter 10, he forbids them from preaching it to Gentiles. In Matthew 15, he tells the Gentile (Canaanite) woman that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He ignores her when she addresses him as "Son of David," a title she has no right use.

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 10:7)
-the gospel the 12 were sent to preach which was forbidden to be preached to Gentiles 

Israelites are referred to as "children" (by the Lord), while Gentiles are referred to as "little dogs" (by the Lord) in comparison. The Gentile woman refers to Israel as "masters" over the Gentiles. It is only when she takes her place as a little dog, drops the reference to "Son of David," acknowledges her masters, that the Lord heals her daughter. The Lord never sees nor touches her daughter nor the Centurion's servant. He touches the Israelites he heals.

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. 

-Matthew 15:21-28

 

• O Lord, Son of David... But He did not answer her a word.
• Lord, help me... And He answered...
• Yes, Lord... dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.
• He daughter was healed instantly

When the Lord announces he must go to Jerusalem and die in Matthew 16, his disciples refuse to believe it and try to keep him from going ("And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you"). So, obviously, the Gospel of the Kingdom announce by John the Baptist, then by the Lord in Matthew 4 and Matthew 9 had nothing to do with the Lord's death, burial, or resurrection. So, the gospel the 12 were sent to preach in Matthew 10 also had nothing to do with the Lord's death, burial, or resurrection. The King, the Son of David, had come to Israel.

Those basic lines of truth from the Lord's earthly ministry are all lost in these TV and movie depictions. They carelessly present events regardless of the message being spoken in scripture. The gospel we know and preach today supplants the Gospel of the Kingdom the Lord spoke to Israel alone in the flesh. They ignore the very teachings of the Lord. These muddled movies become a substitute for scripture for many.

I was a huge fan of Jesus of Nazareth, the 1977 miniseries. After I got saved, I saw it was going to be on TV the next Easter season. I was excited, until I watched it. I had seen it many times, but now I could see all the errors and the obvious interpretation inflicted on the texts. The brief section I saw of The Passion when it came to television was the same. Emotional? Yes. Based on a true story? Yes. But full of Catholic "visions" and mythology. Well, Mel Gibson told us it was based on the visions of a Catholic mystic. I believed him. Why did so few Evangelicals? 

Jonathan Roumie (cast as the Lord in The Chosen) is suckering people in. He has used his platform to sell Catholicism. HUGE money is behind the Mary-worship app he pushes. Catholic magazines celebrate Evangelicals looking into Catholicism and lapsed Catholics going back to Rome.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm just telling you what I know Roumie's goal is. Jim Caviezel (cast as the Lord in The Passion) and Mel Gibson's goal was to get people into the CC using their film. That's Roumie's and The Chosen's goal. And he'll use the emotion of the films to get believers off-guard. He'll mold the Biblical accounts to fit his theology. Very few will bother to put the healing of the Centurion's servant into its proper context in Matthew. It was near the start of the Lord's public ministry, while the Lord is still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel alone. Is that where The Chosen places it?

We know violence has been done to the biblical text and message. The gospel accounst are mixed up and wrongly divided (cp. 2 Tim 2:15). Roumie and the people behind the series have a Jesus that does not come from the inspired texts, but rather from religious tradition (just as the Jesus in the Jesus of Nazareth miniseries and The Passion film did).

If the argument is made that "God can use it," I would say that God is free to use anything He wants, but we are not free to do so. Certainly we are not free to add to, subtract from, or wrongly divide the Word of Truth. 

The Catholic Church's Definition of "Christian"

 A little different tack today. I am very careful not to parrot opinion or sterotype. I prefer to let people speak for themselves. As I like to put it, "I don't accuse 'em, I just quotes 'em."

Social network (GETTR) live-streamer and "influencer," Isabel Brown, groaned recently on her page, "Catholics are Christian too!" I suppose one too many Evangelicals questioned the status of Catholics as Christians. This would be a interesting gripe if not for the official doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church officially, and with great prejudice, condemns, specifically, the gospel held by Evangelicals (Trent, etc.). That's fine. That should end the discussion (on both ends). We acknowledge they have a right to believe what the want, just don't pretend to be some sort of victim. 

For the record,  I don't care what label you take, I'll fellowship with anyone resting in the Lord's work alone. If one does believe in the gospel of the free grace of God, I don't understand why he would stay in the CC, but that's a horse of a different color. As to who is a true "Christian" however, Isabel's chosen church of affiliation has very clear opinion (and they're not very nice about it).

A few quotes from countless like them, covering a millenia or more:

"To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth."
-Pius XII (1957)

"So long as the member lives in the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives in the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic."
-Leo XIII

"He who confesses the doctrine of Jesus Christ in his Church. Hence, he who is truly a Christian thoroughly detests all cults and sects found outside the doctrine and outside the Church of Christ, everywhere and among all peoples, as for example the Jewish, the Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects."
-St. Peter Canisius

"[The CC] firmly believes, confesses and preaches that no one outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews nor heretics and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life, but will go into eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

-Eugene IV

And from the current catechism, released by the Magisterium under the auspices of "Saint" John Paul II in 1994 concerning me (condemned) and you (the Catholic Church is saving you from a distance, heretic):

YOU MUST BE BAPTIZED! Oh, except Muslims, Hindus, Animists...

And we have not even scratched the surface of the many caveats on their doctrines regarding baptism and non-Christian religions. The Paulist order (which the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Newark) taught that other religions (and even atheists) are just climbing the same mountain, but on the other side [Faith of Catholics: An Introduction by Richard W. Chilson, Paulist Press, 1978]. It's a free-for-all meant to deceive. 

Let us remind ourselves, again, of this "infallible" decree:

"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

They'll say whatever works, on any particular day, to try and fool Evangelicals (I know, I was trained in the art of deception as a Religious Education Teacher in the CC), but they have never departed from "Christian = Catholic."

Isabel is offended if someone questions whether she's a Christian or not while her church condemns non-Catholic believers over and over and over while also insisting that only Catholics are real Christians?


I have less than zero sympathy for Miss Brown.

Hail, Believer, Full of Grace

 Those of us with a Catholic upbringing (or any familiar with the prayers of the Catholic Church) will be familiar with the "Hail Mary." Known officially as "The Hail Mary," it is one of the (if not the) most offered prayers in Catholicism. In the saying of the Five-Decade Rosary, the prayer is repeated over 50 times.

 The text of the prayer is made up a first half carved from scripture (Luke 1:28) and the second half was codified by the RCC in AD1568 as one of the responses of the RCC to the Reformation. It was informally used for several centuries before that, but as with the canonization of the Apocrypha, it found itself becoming "official" in the counter-reformation.

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
-KJV

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
-Douay-Rheims (1899)

The Greek word here is "charitóō." Strong's defines it thusly:

 

to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

"Special Honor" and "be highly favored." Wonderful! But let us not miss "make accepted."

Mounce defines it this way:

to give graciously, to show acts of kindness by freely giving; (n.) one highly favored

We note that "freely giving." This explains why such a one is "highly favored." It is not internally true. It is a bestowed honor in this context.

Thayer defines it:

1. to make graceful charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3. to honour with blessings

Note "to MAKE" and "to HONOR." 

This Greek word, "charitóō," is used by the Holy Spirit in one other instance in the Greek text of scripture.

Ephesians 1:6

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
-KJV


Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.
-DR 1899

As with Mary, we are graced from the outside. We are the recipients of honor we do not deserve. Note in Ephesians the praise is for "the glory of his grace." Incredible! His grace surely is glorious! How blessed are we? Blessed beyond measure. Those of us in the One Body are blessed with "unsearchable riches" in the far above the heavens!

To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ...

The great apostle Paul takes his place as "less than the least of all the saints." He recognizes the grace given him, an undeserved grace. A grace we all need. A grace we are dependent upon for our hope of resurrection life in the ages to come.

We turn back to Mary and look at her example as well.

Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

The word translated "maidservant" here is the Greek word "doúlē." It was used to refer to a female slave or female servant. One who had no rights. Neither Mary nor Paul claimed anything before the Lord. Both understood they were highly graced, blessed beyond measure by a gracious and loving God!

That is the example we need to take from these saints of God. As saints ourselves, we should never forget all our blessings and our hope of life to come is purely by grace alone through faith alone in the death, burial, lack of decay, and resurrection of the Savior, the Holy One of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ!

As to the ending of the Catholic prayer ("pray for us now and at the hour of our death"), we must reject. It is a negation of the grace of God. These words are not found in scripture and surely Mary would have no thought of such a thing.

And Mary said:

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.

God, Mary's Savior. Yes, we call her blessed. Such an honor to bear her own Savior and the Savior of the world!  Mary took her place as God's servant, Paul was faithful to his calling to bring the truth of the Mystery of the current dispensation to us Gentiles. Let us be thankful for their faithfulness and, along with them, give all glory to our Savior and the author of Life eternal, the Lord Jesus Christ!

More Confusion Over the Reformed Love for Aquinas

I previously wrote about the confusing doctrine of Purgatory. In getting there, I quoted one of the recent heroes of the Reformed movement, Dr. R.C. Sproul:

I, for one, am persuaded that the Protestant Church owes a profound debt to Saint Thomas and the benefit of a second glance at his contributions.... We need an Aquinas. We need a titanic thinker who will not abandon truth for safety. We need men and women who are willing to compete with secularists in defense of Christ and of his truth.
In this regard, the dumb ox of Aquino was heroic.

-R.C. Sproul on Thomas Aquinas

I went on to note Aquinas' view of Purgatory in light of Sproul's ringing endorsement. It should be seen as horrible heresy by any true believer. This is the man we defer to on doctrine? The excerpt is from an article of Sproul's about Aquinas titled, "Was He The Most Brilliant of All the Theologians?" Well, maybe he was, if gross heresy and error fall under "brilliant." I'm not doubting his intelligence, but we understand that intelligence, not informed by scripture and the new nature is a dangerous thing. No one doubts Satan is briliant, but that hardly makes him an arbiter of truth.

I revisit this topic because I recently received a fundraising letter from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. In my previous life as a devout Roman Catholic, I supported them financially along with other conservative Catholic organizations. I still receive requests from several of these organizations despite having left the CC over a quarter of a century ago. I'm pretty sure I've responded to all of them with a short testimony and a gospel tract at some point... but still the appeals come.

Out of boredom or curiosity, I decided to read the appeal before I tossed it in the scrap bucket. And wouldn't you know it, it closes (in part) with this:

Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary provides a formation founded upon the sound teachings, principles, and methods of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Angelic Doctor of the Church.

I'm not suggesting either Aquinas or Sproul is guilty by association. Surely the CC takes scripture out of context which is no fault of scripture. But in the case of Aquinas, some of his teachings are presented as interpretations of scripture which are wholly opposed to sound Christian doctrine.  These teachings are treated on the level of scripture itself.We noted this in our previous study on Purgatory. In an case, we should never build anything on the non-inspired word of any man alone.

And just as the CC carries the authority of Aquinas too far, so would some in the true church.

The problem is not directly with Aquinas, it is the odd reverence men like Aquinas, Augustine, Cyprian, etc. receive from the Reformed movement. They treat the writings and opinions of these men almost as though they are scripture. They are called "Church Fathers" and "Doctors of the Church," yet they are no more authoritative than I am (than you are).

The Reformed movement embraces heretics like Aquinas while scoffing at and black-balling men like E.W. Bullinger. The Reformed churches are the worst, but it's not just them. I was in the dispensational Plymouth Brethren for ten years and many there warned of "Bullingerism." Meanwhile, they would not bat an eye at someone quoting Aquinas or Augustine. That is not universally true among the PB, but true in enough places.

If you not aware, the Plymouth Brethren trace their roots to John Darby himself and have produced many (classical) dispensational scholars and teachers. But even there, in some quarters, a "Church Father" has more respect than the great dispensational teacher, E.W. Bullinger. Again, I want to be careful. There are PB who recommend some of Bulliger's works, etc. I only use the presence of some angst among some of them in regard to Bullinger as a contrast to the relative acceptance of the "Church Fathers" across a wide range of Christian theologies.

A teacher may quote Augustine and have no negative reaction, but quote Bullinger and he risks blow-back. This is certainly true among the Reformed.

One of the most scathing "anti-Bullingerism" pieces you can find was penned by well-known dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside. I read it when I was trying to refute Bullinger's teachings, but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out who Ironside was attacking! The paper is a tilting at windmills. He was attacking a straw man of his own making.

So it's not just a Reformed love of Aquinas that this ex-Catholic finds confusing, it's the admiration of the "Church Fathers" (not named Paul) in general by anyone professing the true gospel that troubles me.

PS: the only encouraging thing in the group's annual appeal is in the opening line: "The Catholic priesthood is in crisis." May it be so.

Traditions That Interfere With True Understanding

Becoming a Berean

I was born, raised, educated, and immersed in the Roman Catholic Church. It is a place steeped in tradition. While serving as a Religious Education teacher in 1991, I had a crisis of faith. I started my search for the truth. I read my textbooks, Catholic publications, history books, and finally the Bible. Cut to the end, the Bible won.

After coming out of everything I had ever known into the new life as a regenerated follower of the Lord Jesus Christ (Kýrios Iēsoûs Christós) over the course of only a few weeks, I was blessed with the conviction that I was never going to just take someone's word for something again. That does not mean that I will not listen to or read the works of others, but (as I've stated many times on the pages of this blog), in the end, I am responsible for my personal beliefs. Over the years, my personal theology has grown and changed (and will continue to do so until my death).

The Bereans listened to Paul, but checked what he was teaching against the scripture (Acts 17:11).

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica,for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scripturesevery day to see if what Paul said was true. -Acts 17:11 (NIV)

Seeking God's Plan Not Our Version of It

The Lord has been patient with me during the past 28 years. I (eventually) came out of the RCC into loneliness of sorts (I initially tried to stay in the RCC, but knowing what I know, that didn't last long). I suddenly had no faith community. I quickly filled that void with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (I worked at a university at the time) and eventually found my way into an Assemblies of God community.

Lovely Christians, but as with all groups, I wasn't going to just adopt their doctrines sans scrutiny. After a little over a year, I decided to move on. Well, the rest of the story is over two decades long, so I will get back to the central point of this post.

If we are to going to understand God's plan and purpose for the ages, we must put aside the traditions of men. Some of these traditions are not as egregious as others. For example, I think it can be demonstrated that there were 5 crosses on Calvary and not the traditional 3. Doesn't make or break the faith, but if you hold to 3 you may run into critics who will accuse scripture of having mistakes or contradictions.

Truth Over Tradition (Hades, Gehenna, and Hell)

From my perspective, Christianity is hindered by the general adoption of Catholic mythology which is borrowed from Greek mythology. These taint our understanding of scripture and the plan and purpose of the ages. For example, when we read of those cast into out darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, or of those thrown into Gehenna, the "fiery hell" of mythology is assumed instead of a scriptural understanding.

We have covered Gehenna and Hades (both translated as "hell" in many translations) in previous posts, but just as a quick review, let's look one example of each and search the scriptures for context lest we end up in confusion.

But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court [Gk: Sanhedrim]. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell [Gk:Gehenna]. 

-Matt 5:22 (NIV)

This verse is from the Sermon on the Mount; a passage some call the Magna Carta of the Church.

 We also compare its use in just one example from Mark 9.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell Gk:Gehenna], into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

-Mark 9:43

Setting aside the enormous problems created when we try to apply these to regenerated believers in this age, let's look at what the Lord is referencing (time, place, audience) and let scripture interpret scripture.

And they have gone forth, And looked on the carcases of the men Who are transgressing against me, For their worm dieth not, And their fire is not quenched, And they have been an abhorrence to all flesh! 

-Isaiah 66:24

If the "Sanhedrim" (Young's Literal Translation) isn't enough to let us know this is not the Body of Christ in this age, but rather points to Israel, the context of Isaiah 66 should inform us. This is after Israel has been restored to her land, her promises, and her kingdom. We also see that those thrown in "Gehenna" (the Valley of Hinnom, the "Valley of Slaughter" Jer 19:6) are "carcases." That is, these are real, physical, dead bodies. These is not ghosts thrown into a ghostly fire to be tortured by God.

Greek mythology and Catholic teaching on "hell" confuses us. When we see "Hades" or "Gehenna," tradition inserts "fiery eternal torture." We've just looked at Gehenna (as we have in a previous post in greater detail), now just one example of Hades. I've chosen the New Living Translation here as it is triply influenced by tradition.

Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
-Matt 16:18

The triple problem here is that the NLT fails to distinguish the two "rocks" referenced here (Gk: Petros/petra); it inserts its presumption of "powers" instead of "gates" (Gk: pyle); and it changes "prevail" (GK: katischýō) to "conquer." This last change is in the neighborhood, but the context of "gate" leans towards the primary meaning of "to be stronger."

That is, "gates" don't attack, overpower, or conquer anything, but they can be stronger than a force coming against them. We wouldn't say "gates" could "conquer" anything as such.

If you're a fan of the CCM artist Carman, you'll know he built half his career on the mythology of Satan leading an army from "hell" against Christians. Unfortunately, this verse has nothing to do with such a thing. Scripture informs us that Satan is "the prince and the power of the air." He is currently nowhere near "Gehenna" nor does he control it. Gehenna has no fire as I write. Again, the Lord refers to a future age (Isaiah 66).

So where does the Lord get this picture? The NIV, which is full of reference notes, rightly notes that the "gates of hell/hades" is "the realm of the dead," but it fails to cross-reference two key verses which clearly give us the meaning (NKJV).

Will they go down to the gates of Sheol? Shall we have rest together in the dust?”
-Job 17:16

I said, “In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol; I am deprived of the remainder of my years.”
-Isaiah 38:10

This a picture of death (the return to dust). As we have consistently seen on the pages of this blog, pointing directly to scripture, "death" is the great enemy of man. Death is what needs to be overcome. Death is what Christ reversed in his burial (lack of decay) and resurrection and what we will destroy in our own resurrection!

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”

-1 Cor 15:54-55

This is Paul's only use of "Hades" (hell) in his writings, and it refers to believers. His only other reference (in Acts 13) refers to the Lord conquering the grave (quoting from the Psalms). He never uses it of unbelievers.

Dump the Traditions of Men

We must get traditional ideas, born out of mythology, out of our thinking if we want to fully understand and rejoice in what Christ accomplished in his death, burial (lack of decay/corruption), and resurrection.

So let's look at Matthew 16:18 again in Young's Literal Translation (plus some original Greek) with Job and Isaiah and "the gates of Sheol" in mind:

`And I also say to thee, that thou art a [pebble], and upon this [boulder, Peter's confession of faith] I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Death will not hold those who profess alone the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior in the grave! When we are called, we will burst through death unto new, resurrection life! Death is the "final enemy" (1 Cor) and we look forward to that day when death shall be no more (Rev)!

We do have an enemy in Satan and the principalities and powers in heavenly places (Eph 6), but the answer to those fiery darts of doubt, confusion, religion, false light, etc... is found in "the whole armor of God" (Eph 6) and in "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Tim 2).

A good parallel study concerning the traditions of men and the resurrection is our study of 2 Cor 5:8.

Link: The Most Misquoted Verse in Scripture

Catholicism And Contradictions

The majority of mankind think that they think; they acquiesce, and suppose that they argue; they flatter themselves that they are holding their own, when they have actually grown up to manhood, with scarcely a conviction that they can call their own. So it was, and so it ever shall be.

-E.W. Bullinger

 In my 27 years in Christendom, I have discovered the above to be too often true. I can see where I have been guilty of adopting certain views or interpretations before doing the necessary work. But I believe this dangerous problem is no more true anywhere than it is in the Catholic Church.

This past Friday, according her wishes, a funeral mass was held for my mother. As the child who is in the city with the church, I was tasked with working with the church on the arrangements. I didn't have a lot of say, but I was asked to choose the scripture readings. I was given a list of choices for each reading (Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel). My choices:

• Job 19
• Romans 5
• John 11

I chose scriptures that speak of the hope and truth of resurrection because of the finished work of the Savior. Those familiar with my posts know that I hold that resurrection is the great hope of believers. This is how believers in scripture are comforted.

When it came time for the homily, we were pleasantly surprised. The priest gave a wonderful message on the great hope of resurrection for all who believe. I had chosen John 3:16 as the response verse and he referred to it as the great promise of life to those who believe. He cast a large net to all present who believe. Give the man his due, he spoke great truth! It was a message on the hope of resurrection rarely heard in Evangelical pulpits.

He spoke of what Christ did for all of us on the cross. He spoke of Christ's one act undoing Adam's one act. It was pretty spot on.

But then the man turned to the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" wherein we were offering a sacrifice for my mother's soul? The whole thing, and every prayer, turned from the Savior to our offerings for my mom's soul. (I won't quote the mass here, you can search Catholic prayers for those in Purgatory.) It was a complete denial of the work of Christ we were just celebrating. They also make clear that when they say "church" they mean the Roman Catholic Church alone. And, of course, only Catholics in good standing were invited to participate in communion (which is fine with me, I reject transubstantiation and I don't participate in the "Lord's Supper" in this age anywhere).

That brings me to my mother's friends. From the priest to every Catholic who visited the family receiving line, they all said things along two lines: her suffering is over, she is now in bliss with my deceased father. No. That is not what you teach! That is not what the Catholic Church believes at all! They teach and believe she is suffering beyond anything we can imagine. She is suffering for her sins in flames (the "flames of love" as one Catholic "saint" put it).

The even greater irony is that several of these people gave us cards informing us mass will be offered for her by some Catholic order or another. But you told me her suffering is over and she is rejoicing with my father?

I briefly covered Purgatory in a recent post. You can read that if you want more information. The point here is that they don't even follow their own doctrines. If I had said to these devout Catholics when they said her suffering was over that they were wrong and that she is suffering for hers sins in flames with pain we cannot imagine, I'd most likely be labeled a "Catholic-basher" or worse (I know because that has been true for the last 27 years). Or they might simply think I'm a cruel monster.

I am not even touching the hem of the garment on Papal teaching in regard to non-Catholics and ex-Catholics. As the priest spoke to all us as believers who will find life in resurrection, he was denying Pope, Council, and Catechism which teach salvation only for Catholics and the certainty of fiery torment forever for those of us who have left the CC.

People are free to believe what they want. But if you're going to claim the Catholic Church is keeper of all spiritual truth, then contradict it, don't trouble me when I contradict it. I'm glad these Catholics don't just parrot Catholic dogma, but when a clear contradiction is presented, they don't seem to care or question it either. As I noted in a another post:

On that day, no denomination, no church, no board, no council, no catechism, no creed, no pastor, no teacher, no seminary... no one will stand in your stead. There are 7 billion theologies in the world and you are responsible for ONE... your own.... and you will answer for it.

My mother is dead. My father is dead. Our hope is that the professions they made in Christ's perfect sacrifice and resurrection means we will see them in the flesh in an age to come. This is the hope the priest spoke of... I just don't think he really believes it. Of course, he could have purposely been speaking in double-speak. I attended a seminar as a Catholic Religious Education teacher wherein we were taught this technique when speaking with Evangelicals.

Since I have no way to read a man's heart, I hope he truly believes what he spoke in that homily and that he will experience resurrection. God is calling Catholics (as I was when he found me) into the light of the truth of the finished work of the Savior, unfortunately some choose to stay in the Catholic Church (more on that in another post).

All praise and glory and honor to our Great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Lent Comes of Age

The original post was written in 2009

“You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Christianity Today (repeated in The Alabama Baptist) notes that Lent is “one of the oldest Christian Traditions.” TAB laments that the season is not practiced in many Southern Baptist churches. I have a similar lament: that it is practiced at all in Southern Baptist churches (or by Evangelicals anywhere).

Let’s take a look at this “old Christian tradition.”

We can all agree that it certainly is not a practice given to us in the pages of scripture. So what does that mean? Well, it means that some guy made it up. Whether he made it up in AD 100 or in AD 2000 makes no difference; he still made it up. Now, if you are one who has no problem with stuff people make up that isn’t in the Bible, then this post isn’t necessarily directed at you.

I just can’t understand why groups which claim Sola Scriptura (authority comes from the scriptures alone) would fawn over such a glaringly unbiblical and historically deadly practice. It’s not terribly surprising, though, as more and more Evangelicals fawn over the “beautiful” and unbiblical practices that go on all around us (practices that were denied by the faithful for centuries - at the risk of their very lives).

How we got here…

OK, so we have some guy who created this “holy season" (which probably dates back to pre-Christ pagan worship in another form). He likes it so much he starts telling his friends about it. They can’t seem to find it in their Bibles either so some of them don’t care to follow the “new Christian tradition.” This upsets the originator of Lent so he gets his like-minded buddies to form a council and they vote that Christians MUST practice Lent.

Lent was formalized at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. The earliest evidence of any kind of Lenten practice dates to the 3rd Century.  CatholicEducation.org gives us a picture of the original restrictions:

For example, Pope St. Gregory (d. 604), writing to St. Augustine of Canterbury, issued the following rule: "We abstain from flesh, meat, and from all things that come from flesh, as milk, cheese and eggs." Second, the general rule was for a person to have one meal a day, in the evening or at 3 p.m.

But those rules were eventually abandoned (or as CE puts it "evolved").

These Lenten fasting rules also evolved. Eventually, a smaller repast was allowed during the day to keep up one's strength from manual labor. Eating fish was allowed, and later eating meat was also allowed through the week except on Ash Wednesday and Friday. Dispensations were given for eating dairy products if a pious work was performed, and eventually this rule was relaxed totally.

Remember as you read these directives, violating them is deemed "sin," in some cases very serious, soul-destroying sin. The season puts true Christians in bondage to fear and succors unbelievers in their delusion that they are pleasing God. It hides the fact that these practices are a mockery of the finished work of the Savior.

The Bible is Sufficient

Heresy and false shepherds were alive in Paul’s day… and more were expected. Shall we look at their “traditions” and say to Paul, “Well, Paul, that stuff may have been wrong in your day, but nearly 2000 years have passed! Surely, doctrines that old must have become truer over time”?


No, that would be silly (I’m trying to be nice).

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. - Acts 20

God’s dealings with man have changed at different times for different purposes, but those changes originated with God and are confirmed by his Holy Word. Now, we may debate the content of that Word, but we surely should be able to rule out anything contradictory to it.

The Evangelical site gotquestions.org notes:

The rule that Catholics cannot eat meat on Fridays during Lent is actually more lenient than what most Catholics in history have had to observe. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church had a law that forbade consuming meat on all Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Later, this rule was relaxed to remove meat from the diet on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays. In 1966, Catholic bishops in America, with the blessing of Pope Paul VI, further relaxed the rule. Nowadays meat is only prohibited on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Fridays of the Lenten season. Catholics are obligated to observe this fast as a minimum..

The "threat" accompanying all these rules is standard in Catholcism: knowingly eating meat on a Friday in Lent, with the full consent of your will, may result in being tortured by fire by God for eternity if not confessed and absolution received from a priest via your assigned act of penance.

Just one of the countless Christ-denying doctrines of the RCC. The only reason the RCC exists (according to her) is to be the sole channel of God's specific grace which can get you to heaven (eventually). If the work of salvation is complete, there is no need for the RCC. This is why (a) they cannot accept the finished work and (b) why we should stop pretending the RCC is just another expression of true Christianity.

Ancient Doesn't Make It True

Yes, Lent is old, but just because something is “old” doesn’t make it any better than if I invented it yesterday. Next time you hear about some “lovely” tradition, do as the “noble” Bereans did with Paul’s doctrines in Acts 17:11 “search the scriptures whether these things are so.”


The progression:

• Doesn’t Exist 
• Some Guy Makes it Up 
• It Gets a Little Older 
• It Gets Even Older and Changes 
• It Becomes “Ancient” 
• Nobody Remembers that Somebody Made it Up
• It's Ancient, so people assume it's true 

Time is not the arbiter of truth. The passage of time doesn’t make anything more “true” nor does it make the statements of men any more authoritative.

I’m trying to reconcile the words in Christianity Today… they used the adjective “Christian” for a practice they know well is not biblical (a doctrine connected to promises and condemnations that are antithetical to Evangelical Christianity). It makes me wonder… if I made up an unbiblical practice today and declared that failure to honor it as I dictate would amount to one risking his eternal fate… how quickly would Christianity Today and the Southern Baptist Convention swoon over my lovely “Christian tradition”?

You know what I'm giving up for Lent? The unscriptural traditions of men.

"Let no man judge you in regard to a holy day..." (Col 2:16)

I am free of the rudiments of this world (Colossians 2), biblical (practices given for other dispensations) and unbiblical. It would be sin for me to subject myself to those rudiments. For these reasons (among others) I neither practice nor acknowledge the practice of observing man's Lent. The Alabama Baptist, Christianity Today, and the Southern Baptist Churches which endorse it should be ashamed.

The Confusing Doctrine of Purgatory

Thomas Aquinas is called a "Doctor of the Church" and a "Saint" by the Catholic Church. Noted Calvinist, RC Sproul, said of him:

I, for one, am persuaded that the Protestant Church owes a profound debt to Saint Thomas and the benefit of a second glance at his contributions.... We need an Aquinas. We need a titanic thinker who will not abandon truth for safety. We need men and women who are willing to compete with secularists in defense of Christ and of his truth.
In this regard, the dumb ox of Aquino was heroic.

-R.C. Sproul on Thomas Aquinas – Was He The Most Brilliant of All the Theologians? (Excerpt)

This is an enormous topic for one blog post, but just let me note what this "doctor," "saint," and "most brilliant of all the theologians" had to say about the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory:

In Purgatory there will be a twofold pain; one will be the pain of loss, namely the delay of the divine vision, and the pain of sense, namely punishment by corporeal fire.... thus all sins, however grave they be, are expiated by the fire of Purgatory [Not by the sacrifice of Christ], as regards the debt of punishment. Therefore venial sins are cleansed by the fire of Purgatory as to their guilt... It is therefore clear that this opinion is utterly unreasonable: and consequently we must say with others that venial sin in one who dies in a state of grace, is remitted after this life by the fire of Purgatory: because this punishment so far as it is voluntary, will have the power, by virtue of grace, to expiate all such guilt as is compatible with grace... -Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas (excerpt)

"This fire of Purgatory will be more severe than any pain that can be felt, seen or conceived in this world." -Augustine (xli De Sanctis, as quoted by Aquinas)

Just among Catholics you will find varying views on whether the fire is real or figurative. The confusion is great. Let me just point to the words of "Saint" Robert Bellarmine:

NOW on the time, in which Purgatory will remain, there are two extreme errors. The first error is that of Origen, who extended the times of Purgatory beyond the day of the resurrection...

We note that he says "Church Father" Origen* taught "error." Again, we will be here for days if we try to nail down some consistency, so I will turn to the Catholic site divinemercy dot org:

We are not certain about the nature of the punishment of purgatory. The Church does not teach dogmatically [that is, definitively] that it is a "physical fire," even though many preachers and some catechisms speak of "the fires of purgatory." The official declarations of the Councils speak only of purifying punishments, not purifying fire. Whatever it is, it is painful. -Volume three of Fundamentals of Catholicism (pp. 375-376)

So, it may be real fire, it may not be (can't even trust the Saints on this one, Aquinas teaches Purgatory is near the fires of "hell" itself)... but one thing we do know, it is "painful." .

So, when a Catholic relative passes and another Catholic says to you "he's in arms of Jesus now," or "she's no longer suffering," turn to that one and say, "according to your own church, he isn't in the arms of Jesus, he is suffering great pain for his sins."

Note I have not tried to debate the issue of Purgatory itself. The vast majority of what you will find online about this issue is a defense of the doctrine. Readers of this blog know I believe two things very strongly: (a) resurrection life is a free gift for which Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all sin and (b) the dead, all the dead, are in the grave (apart from the risen Christ) until the resurrection of those who have life through his name (in their order).

My point is that arguing with a doctrine whose proponents cannot agree as to the details (even among their own doctors, church fathers, saints, and current adherents) is most likely a waste of your time. I imagine it would amount to mostly endless babbling.

The foundation scripture of this ministry is 2 Tim 2:15, but the verse that follows is of the utmost importance if the worker wants to focus on the work of rightly dividing the word of truth:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

The "profane and vain babbling" Paul uses as his example is the teaching that resurrection had passed. So, the most profane things are those which concern scriptural truth (resurrection in this case), but a perversion of that truth. Thus it is with Purgatory and the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 3 and Peter in 1 Pet 1. There is a fire to test our works as Christians to come, but it is neither punishment nor physically painful. As we have been reviewing in our series on walking in the spirit, do not find yourself disapproved.


-----------------------------------


*Origen taught horrific error about the nature of God and Christ; his doctrines on the soul were called "monstrous" and some of his teachings were declared heretical by the Catholic Church itself (Fifth Ecumenical Council, Second Council of Constantinople). But Pope Benedict XVI said of him "a figure crucial to the whole development of Christian thought", "a true 'maestro'", and "not only a brilliant theologian but also an exemplary witness of the doctrine he passed on..." To be fair, there seems to be some confusion among Catholic authorities about what exactly took place at the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople in regard to Origen, but that confusion (and the contradictions between Pope and Council) only add to the unstable house of cards that is "Sacred Tradition."

The Sad State of Modern Christianity

I'm pausing briefly in our parallel series on Walking in the Spirit and Walking Worthy of our calling to comment on a sad interchange I had online. What's going on in Christendom in these last days is chronicled well by other ministries (such as HisChannel and J.D Farag), so I'll just provide a representative example of the lack of discernment prevalent in the church and what I sense (I admit this is subjective) is a desire to signal one's virtue above defending the faith (or even defending Christ).

Contemporary Christianity is rife with this sort of thing, and it is particularly prevalent in contemporary music. Readers of this blog will note that I have no problem with the music itself, but doctrine and practice are always subject to scrutiny.

In this case, we see the typical progression:

• Declare something beautiful and comforting which denies Christ... BUT it's beautiful and comforting! Declare you don't understand it, you only know it feels good.
• Be shown that what you are publicly endorsing, in fact, denies Christ (and condemns you)
• Make sure everyone knows you already know, but you don't want to judge!
• Be shown you are called to love Christ more than you are to be seen as "not judging" (note:  acknowledging clearly taught doctrines is not "judging," it is simply stating fact) 
• Claim you know all that, but it's about beauty and comfort, not doctrine!
• Then throw in a personal shot by indirectly accusing the informer of being "Old Testament."
• Say this shouldn't be public... despite you going public at the start

Again, readers of this blog should find accusing me of going Old Testament hilarious!

In this case, a musician ( a tremendously talented musician in my opinion) decided to say that his Christianity had become "stagnant", but he found joy in the Catholic mass. Note his own words:

I don't understand much of what's happening during mass, b[ut] the size and scope of the church and the sound of so many voices have really drawn me to the awe of a God I don't fully understand either. And I really like it.

My initial response to his public post which states he doesn't understand the mass:

Educated in it and taught Religious Education in it. The mass is a denial of the finished work. There’s a lot more, but that should be sufficient to reject it. The catechism officially condemns me to the flame for leaving the church. Again, I’m only scratching the surface.

I resisted a long post heavy with quotes. I noted the catechism and was prepared for a reasonable request to prove what I had proposed. He didn't seem interested in my opinion, so I noted it wasn't my opinion. He said he didn't understand the mass, so I continued by giving him a brief introduction to the mass by referencing what the Catholic Church itself teaches about it. So, as he is informed that the Catholic Church forbids him from communion and that he risks "eating damnation unto himself" (their doctrines remember), he decided I was wrong for pointing out what he openly stated he "doesn't understand."

He responded in part:

I didn't walk into the church blind and ignorant.

But he started by saying he "[doesn't] understand much of what's happening during mass." And then he tried to compare the Catholic mass with his experiences as a Baptist. Why the reluctance to defend the finished work? Why not kindly say you totally reject the doctrines I referenced? That is between Heath and God, but I felt as though, in light of his refusal to defend the finished work (he allowed a Catholic to recommend a book by a Catholic apologist), I needed to educate Christians.

I don't think you're following. You have an obligation to Christ first and also to your followers. If you truly know what they teach, why seemingly endorse it? What if I found a Mormon service "beautiful" or "comforting," do I have no duty to warn of their denial of Christ?

Not wanting to appear judgmental does not outweigh our primary call to honor Christ and our obligation to contend earnestly for the faith. They deny his finished work on Calvary, we must not appear to endorse that as legitimate. You don't have to judge individuals to judge false and Christ-dishonoring and Christ-denying doctrines.

If you know they deny the finished work and they exclude and warn non-RCs of damnation... isn't that worth noting? I get it. It's the easy path. If I came on here and said my church is the only true ark of safety, outside of which there is no salvation, and if you perchance do get to heaven, it's because of my church because all grace from God flows through my church (etc.)... I don't think you or your followers would be so forgiving... for some reason the RCC gets a pass.  -Michael 

I tried to make it easy by creating a comparative stating that if I endorsed a Mormon service to a large group of my readers, don't you think I'd owe them an explanation about what Mormonism teaches? Isn't it incumbent upon us to defend sound doctrine concerning the Lord Jesus Christ's person and work? Should we not warn the faithful about wolves among the sheep? Paul spent three years in Ephesus weeping and warning them. Of course we must do this if we have influence. But apparently it's easier to accuse me of being "Old Testament" (again, this is insane in light of my beliefs).

Dude if you said you went to a mormon service and said it was beautiful or comforting, I'd assume that you found it beautiful and comforting and I'd leave the rest to you to do with it as you please. And if I was genuinely worried about what that might mean for you as a person on some deeper level...I might reach out to you privately first instead of doing it in a public venue. But we obviously have different approaches. What I'm attempting to do is tell you in the kindest way I know how that I honestly appreciate you taking the time. And you said what you said. And then I said what I said. You've stated your case. You've done your old testament due diligence of "alerting the village" and I'm thankful. If you want to continue the convo (and I truly don't) then please feel free to message me and we can do it in a way that might not look like two dudes arguing about religion. Bc that's corny and not at all how I'd like either of us to be perceived. Thank you again for sharing.

OK. I appreciate the attempt at the kind words (at least in part), but all I was doing was referencing what the Catholic Church itself teaches. How is that anything but just stating facts? It's what they publish they believe! Take it up with them, not me. How is pointing to their own doctrines being "Old Testament?"

He chides me for my "different approach." But this is not just a private opinion of his, he publicly endorsed a false, Christ-denying, Christian-damning system and ritual to his many followers. I'm not "arguing religion," I'm noting actual Catholic doctrine and exalting the finished work. I don't think that's "corny."

Imagine if I said "I am God!" and someone tried to tell me I'm not... so I accuse them of "arguing religion." If you state you believe A, quoting A is not an argument, it is stating a fact.

I can only surmise that he may be more worried about being seen as "judgmental" instead of worrying about denying the Lord who bought him. Again, I say that with some fear, but I cannot imagine not publicly rejecting something you publicly endorsed, especially after being educated and after saying you don't understand it.

If I endorse an author, then discover he teaches gross heresy on certain issues, I'd be more than glad to share that truth.

Sad to say, but it seems too many Christians are eager to signal their tolerance to find acceptance from the world than to stand for Christ. We're all guilty of this to some degree, but at a minimum we should be ashamed of it. Allowing a blasphemous book to be posted without objection while endorsing a blasphemous practice... then chiding the one who gives you facts you say you don't have?

Sure, I admit I was more than miffed as we shared, but I'd rather be accused of slight impatience than of a promoting doctrines which blaspheme the saving work of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

I've spent many hours over the last two and a half decades defending the popes and councils. Before you click away, what I mean is that I constantly quote Popes and Councils concerning what the Catholic Church teaches. Seems nobody wants to believe them! It's not my "opinion" of the Catholic Church, it's what they tell us they teach and believe.

If you don't like it, don't get angry with me. It's not "hateful" or "judgmental" to quote them. If you don't like what they have said, declared, or affirmed perhaps you should rethink your standards of truth.

The Evil Fruit of Replacement Theology Explodes in Pittsburgh

In light of recent events, let me say this...

Replacement theology, held by the majority of Christendom and taught in most seminaries, has been a Satanic lie which has led to centuries of cruelty. Israel has a hope and a future.

The Jews are the Lord's "brethren" (according to the flesh).

• When the Lord walked the earth, he restricted the gospel of the Kingdom to Israel alone (Matt 10)
• He came to minister to Israel and to affirm the promises made to them alone (Rom 15)
• He was sent to Israel alone (Matt 15). He declared salvation is of the Jews (John 4)
• His disciples went "to Jews only" (Acts 11; Gal 2)
• In the Acts Age, the Jew was first (Rom 1)
• In any town with Jews, Paul went to them first ("as was his practice" Acts 17)
• Paul was in chains "for the hope of Israel" (Acts 28).

Gentiles were without a covenant, without a hope, and without God in the world (Eph). In the Acts Age, Gentiles were "grafted in" to the root (Rom 11) and they could be "cut off" from that root if they acted haughtily toward Israel (Rom 11).

Israel has a future. Israel shall have its New Covenant. It is theirs alone (Jer 31; Heb 8). Christians have robbed them of it. Even the historic stalwarts of dispensationalism have largely abandoned this truth and have grasped the New Covenant for themselves. You may have never considered the implications of this teaching (for it is ubiquitous), but I encourage you to reconsider for whom the New Covenant is promised and "rightly divide the word of truth."

"The first covenant was made with Israel; the second must be so likewise, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah... Although there is no difficulty here, it is important to have light with regard to these two covenants, because some have very vague ideas on this point, and many souls, putting themselves under covenants, that is, in relationship with God under conditions in which He has not placed them-lose their simplicity, and do not hold fast grace and the fullness of the work of Christ, and the position He has acquired for them in heaven."
-J.N. Darby (Commentary on Hebrews 8) 

“To take from Israel what is hers is only to diminish her and not enrich ourselves; nay, what has been called in this way the spiritualizing of the promises has led most surely and emphatically to the carnalizing, and the legalizing, of the Church.”
-F.W. Grant 

"All traditional Dispensationalists believe and teach that Israel alone will be under the New Covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the future Messianic Kingdom. Yet they all, almost without exception, forsake this exclusiveness of the rightly divided Word by maintaining that the Church shares in the 'spiritual' blessings of Israel’s New Covenant!
-Miles J. Stanford (Pauline Dispensationalism)

The Catholic Church spent centuries demeaning and oppressing the Jews as part of its official doctrine and dogma. The Reformed Churches have spread that evil through their ranks. The dispensational churches have abandoned rightly dividing the word of truth and have stolen the New Covenant from Israel. But God's word is everlasting. 

Israel will have its promised kingdom. The kingdom shall be restored to Israel (Acts 1). They shall have their temple, their priesthood, and their king. Gentiles will beg them to take them to God (Zech 8:23).

He will be their God once again, and they shall be His people.

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
-Hebrews 8:10

"Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you."
-Revelation 3:9

"Their [Israel's] sins and their iniquities will I remember no more"
-Heb 8:12

If your church teaches the church replaced Israel or is Israel, get out. If your dispensational church has embraced the New Covenant, call them back to the truth.

REJECT ANTISEMITISM.
REJECT REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY.

On Debating Catholics - Part 2

I'd like to reiterate that this is obviously not an exhaustive study of this topic, it's an overview on a blog. Therefore, I am not laying out every argument against Catholic doctrine and dogma.

With that in mind, I start with a recent exchange I had with a Catholic in regard to a comment I made concerning Pope Francis' condemnation of the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In my comment, I listed (close to verbatim, in English) the decrees of the Papal Bull "Cum nimis absurdum" from Pope Paul IV (July 14, 1555). In that decree, the Pope condemned Jews to "eternal slavery" (and he declared it absurd to believe otherwise).

In response, a Catholic scolded me for not knowing history and pasted a link about Pius XII helping Jews during the Holocaust. Well, everything I posted in that discussion was directly pulled from Paul IV's Papal Bull.

This is an example of what I've encountered countless times: quoting Popes and Councils is somehow tantamount to "Catholic bashing," apparently.

You will encounter argument flows along the following lines.

• A. Catholic argues that they have the Popes to gather around; state there are 220,000 different "Protestant" denominations because we have no central authority [Note: very few, if any, of them, understand what the Evangelical gospel teaches about "the church" which adds to their confusion].  

• B. You are told that Jesus founded the only true church on Pope Peter and they have 2000 years of tradition and the "early church fathers." The Seat of Peter has "the keys of the kingdom" and he may "bind and loose" on all matters of faith and morals.  The RCC is thus superior because of this single, unifying, infallible source. 

At this point, you may start quoting contradictory or vile or crazy things from Popes and Councils.

You may be called a "Catholic basher" at this point (I was banned from a Catholic forum for quoting popes and councils) or you will encounter one of two responses:

• A. Catholics don't really have to listen to the Popes. It's only when they speak "ex cathedra" that they are infallible. Push them and it comes down to only two doctrines. They then feel free to disagree on just about everything else. What they don't realize is that the popes and councils have a very different view of their obedience and what MUST be obeyed. They are charged with "submitting both mind and will" to the Pope on all matters of faith and morals, whether spoken ex cathedra or not. Ecumenical Councils are also said to be "infallible."

• B. Another popular response to quoting a pope from the 12th, 16th, 19th centuries (etc.) goes  something like this, "how about quoting something since the invention of the light bulb!" The inference, of course, is that somehow popes long removed from the "early church fathers" are better equipped to interpret doctrines in the present (ignoring those 2000 years of tradition in the process).

Can you see what happens? While arguing a unifying source and 2000 years of tradition, they feel free to tell us that they essentially are allowed to disagree with Popes, even on the matter of salvation itself. 

If you follow conservative political sites, you see a lot of "I'm Catholic, but this Pope has to go!" comments or similar. Well, that's not just a denial of the papacy, it argues against the Magisterium which elected him (are they not Holy Spirit led?). They also have to ignore their own list of "anti-popes" and the period when there were two papacies (Rome and Avignon), each condemning the other. Failing to note that all of the dual-papacy are popes listed in the official list of succession. And we can't even mention the downright wicked popes (rapists, adulterers, etc.) without backlash.

If one pope can be wrong, ALL popes can be wrong. 

Of course, as with most of these arguments, their worst witnesses are the popes and councils themselves. In this latter case, the idea that a clearly stated decree from Pope or council can be "better understood" over time is itself condemned by Popes (Leo XIII, etc.).

So, before long, you have Catholics who just touted the  "2000 years of tradition" and "Apostolic succession" and "unity under the popes" denying popes and councils and arguing they don't have to listen to some old pope.

Now, Catholic apologists have their own list of stupid "Protestant" arguments or some list of atrocities, etc. But there is a stark difference, I don't care what anybody else taught. Luther being an Anti-Semite means nothing to me. But if you tell me Paul IV is infallible on all matters of faith and morals, and that he may bind and loose... and he declares that Catholics must refuse to eat with Jews (etc.) as a matter of faith and morals... you have the problem, not me. Often the phrase, "we declare, affirm and pronounce" is used in regard to a doctrine held by "the universal church."

Another tactic is to put arguments into your mouth. "You Protestants believe" or "You think Catholics believe" are convenient ways to set up red herrings and straw men. Beware and don't allow them to caricature biblical truths. And, again, if I say "You Catholics believe X because Pope Y and Council Z decreed it so," they must defend. I only have to defend my own beliefs, not those of any other Christian.

I am careful not to put arguments in their mouths and I try to use only Catholic sources (the Vatican web site when possible).What I will do, however, is put Papal arguments in their mouths. I defend the popes as knowing what the CC teaches! I've been accused of being a Sedevacantist on more than one occasion, to which I reply, "No, but I admire their knowledge of CC history and their fidelity to what the popes have taught."

The Bible

In regard to the Bible, they'll claim the CC gave us the Bible, then tell us why it is inferior to their "sacred tradition" (or simply subject to it).  They will soon be explaining away or dismissing it as "old." They also deny its infallibility. Be careful here. They will speak in glowing terms about scripture, then undermine it.

And, as noted, they will readily dismiss "Sacred Tradition" too when it becomes uncomfortable.

I taught Religious Education in the CC. I still have my textbook on this subject. I have other books (with imprimatur) denying inerrancy. They will attack these textbooks and authors (nuns and priests and archbishops, etc.), but you will not find them demanding these things be removed from CC classrooms or textbooks. How can they if the material has an imprimatur of a "prince of the Church?"

I'll stop here. As noted, I don't engage much these days as it has grown tiresome over two decades to deal with such arguments.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
-Titus 3:9

When someone starts to contradict one of his own core premises in order to salvage a pronounced conclusion, such a one probably has no interest in truth, only in argument. 

From such, turn away. 

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
-2 Tim 3:5

Remember, many lay Catholics just like being Catholic. I saw a bumper sticker recently which read "I love being Catholic!" I bet they do... but I bet they'd quickly deny Popes, Councils and more in a heartbeat if confronted with certain quotes and declarations.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic. If you know a Catholic who is truly seeking truth, trust the scripture. Preach grace. Invite them to read the Book of John.

Part 1 can be read HERE

On Debating Catholics - Part 1

A number of years ago, on a now defunct blog, I posted an entry on the topic of debating Catholics. It was born out of numerous frustrating conversations with Catholics in regard to their faith. If it is not known, I am a former Catholic. I was very devout. I was educated in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia under the auspices of John Cardinal Krol. I went on to be be active in high school, college and eventually serving as an acolyte and Religious Education teacher and youth conference speaker.

I do not list these things to present myself as an expert, but rather to show that my knowledge of both the doctrines and culture of the Catholic Church (CC) come, in part, from inside. I also readily note that my experiences in the CC were almost universally positive. I have very fond memories of my years in a CC school: serving as an altar boy, being active in the youth group and as part of the Newman Center in college. Certainly, personal relationships with Catholic family and friends was overwhelmingly positive.

But positive doesn’t make something true nor does it negate the realities of Catholic doctrine.

Remember, something isn't true merely because it is old; or because it is held by many people; or because it is declared by some ecclesiastical body.

Obviously, on a blog, I will not be dissecting 1500 years of Catholic dogmas, decrees and declarations (only as appropriate in context of my topic). To be sure, although educated as a Catholic in a conservative Catholic parish and after serving as an altar boy, acolyte and Religious Education teacher and youth leader, I can safely say I have learned more about the bulls, encyclicals and catechisms (etc.) of the Catholic Church after leaving her. (In my debates I use only Catholic sources when possible.) It is my experience that most Catholics are wholly unfamiliar with their own history or with the teachings of their own church..

I have found over the last quarter century that most of my efforts among Catholics have been mostly fruitless, although not completely so (and who knows what the Lord may have done with any seed sewn?). I turned my attention to teaching the individual responsibility of all men to seek truth for themselves, with a prayerful and honest heart. And that applies to those within and without Christendom.

But lately it has been impressed upon me that I need to renew my warning to those who may want to engage Catholics in discussion or debate. This will serve as simply a warning as to what you are up against (and what the strategy of the greater CC is). It is a gigantic (monstrous?) entity which appears unknowable, mysterious and complex. However, many of its doctrines were so clearly declared by Popes and Councils that we need not get caught up in the purposefully complex debate in which many Catholics want to engage. Trying the explain the clear with the complex is a fool’s errand.

Before moving on, I would suggest to those who feel insufficient either in their grasp of the totality of scripture or the vastness of the dogmas of Rome, that you teach and live grace. The centrality of the cross and the resurrection is the starting point of all true faith. From there, one can only add or subtract from the accomplished work of God himself. And, when understood, all “adding” is merely “subtracting” from his glorious gift and his all-sufficient work. In short, it is prideful blasphemy.

We rest on the only foundation which can be laid, because there is only one sacrifice for sin (complete and eternal).

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
-1 Cor 3:11

Then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
-Hebrews 10:9-14

In Part 2 I will briefly list the type of arguments you will probably see. Again, I will not be exhaustively refuting them, rather I will be alerting you to the methodology of most of the Catholics you will encounter. As with all witnessing, if you can see only argument and no seeking, prepare to  shake the dust from your feet and move on.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
-Titus 3:9

When someone starts to contradict one of his own core premises in order to salvage a pronounced conclusion, such a one probably has no interest in truth, only in argument. 

From such, turn away. 

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
-2 Tim 3:5

Part 2 can be read HERE