|
Chapter Five
As has been shown in previous chapters, there is no difference
between what the Roman Catholic, Protestant (King James Version and New
King James Version), and Orthodox Study bibles teach regarding salvation.
They all present the same gospel of the same Jesus of the New Testament.
Specifically, each faithfully presents the same message of “good
news” for a lost world in clear and certain words, along with God’s
unambiguous promise of eternal life to all who accept the Jesus of the New
Testament, the Christ, as their Lord and Savior.
However, the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox
Churches and many Protestant Churches, teach a different soteriology
(manner of salvation) than that taught by independent, bible-believing,
fundamentalist, New Testament churches.
Somewhat shocking, however, is the fact that these Churches teach a
soteriology contrary to that taught in their respective bibles which, as
mentioned above, all teach the same thing!
The reason can be summed up in one word:
tradition. While The
Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms states that, “One
cannot be an Orthodox priest ... and reject the divinity of Christ, His
virgin birth, Resurrection, Ascension into heaven, and Second Coming,”
apparently one can reject the many teachings by Jesus and His disciples on
eternal security. Whereas the
Good Shepherd said, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never
perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand,” [St. John
10:28, Orthodox Study Bible], Orthodoxy, like Catholicism and other erring
Churches, teaches salvation to be a process accomplished through
receiving sacraments rather than an accomplished act by the Jesus of the
New Testament at Calvary.
Appendix A includes a discussion on the distinguishing
characteristics of independent, bible-believing, fundamentalist, New
Testament churches. These
characteristics are extracted from the Roman Catholic Bible and confirmed
in the Orthodox Study Bible, as well as the King James and New King James
versions.
Back
to top
The word tradition/traditions is used in the bible only in
the New Testament and relatively few times:
ten times in the Roman Catholic Bible and thirteen times in the
King James Version. It is
implied for a fourteenth time in the context of I Corinthians 11:2 wherein
the word ordinances is substituted for traditions:
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things,
and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
Tradition/traditions is used in the New King James Version fourteen
times. I Corinthians 11:2 does not substitute the word ordinances
for traditions in the New King James Version.
Tradition/traditions is used by Jesus several times and in each
instance to point out the contradiction between the traditions of men and
God’s Holy Word. In every
case, that is, without exception, Jesus condemns the traditions of men:
“You
make void the commandment of God by your tradition, which you have handed
down; and many suchlike things you do.”
[St. Mark 7:13]
Jesus tells the Scribes and Pharisees, as recorded in St. Matthew
15:6-9:
“...
So you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition.
Hypocrites, well did Isaias prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people
honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; and in vain do
they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts (traditions) of
men.’”
Back
to top
In Galatians 1:11-14, St. Paul verbalizes his anguish over his past
beliefs (as Saul) in which he advanced up through the ranks of Judaism by
what he calls his zeal for the traditions of his fathers.
It was adherence to those traditions that caused Saul to lead his
minions from town to town to arrest and murder members of the Way
(followers of Jesus) until that fateful day on the proverbial road to
Damascus when Saul had an epiphany: he
recognized Jesus as Lord. At
that point, Saul put away the traditions of men handed down to him by his
forefathers and heard the living Word of God for the first time.
These experiences transformed every aspect of his life, even to his
name.
St. Paul again addresses the subject of traditions in Colossians
2:8:
“See
to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to
human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according
to Christ.”
Here St. Paul offers the strongest words of condemnation for the
traditions of men other than those spoken by Jesus Himself.
In the cited verse, St. Paul establishes two categories of
instruction: (1) the
teachings of Christ, and (2) those not of Christ.
Those elements not of Christ include (1) philosophy and vain
deceit, (2) traditions of men, and (3) the world.
With these words, St. Paul clearly places the traditions of men in
the same category as “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” the three
things the believer knows to be the enemies of God and man and obstacles
to walking in continuous fellowship with Him.
Back
to top
The King James Version uses the word tradition(s) in two places
where the Roman Catholic Bible uses “teachings.”
The first place is II Thessalonians 2:15.
The King James Version is quoted below followed by the same verse
from the Roman Catholic Bible.
“Therefore,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle.” [II Thessalonians 2:15, KJV]
“So
then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings you have learned,
whether by word or letter of ours.”
[II Thessalonians 2:15 Roman Catholic Bible]
Even a cursory examination reveals that they are both giving the
same instruction. Hold on to
what you have learned (been taught) whether by word or letters of ours
(epistle). It is clear that
St. Paul is talking about traditions/teachings during his day.
Evidence that St. Paul is talking about the things of his day,
rather than the future, is found in the use of the word learned/taught,
past tense.
St. Paul again addresses traditions in II Thessalonians 3:6:
“Now
we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which he received of us.” [II Thessalonians 3:6, KJV]
“And
we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw
yourselves from every brother who lives irregularly, and not according to
the teachings received from us.” [II
Thessalonians 3:6 Roman Catholic Bible]
Here again we see same thought expressed in both versions. And again the passing on of traditions/teachings is discussed
in the past tense, it has been completed.
In summary, the New Testament records Jesus’ condemnation of the
traditions of men. St. Paul
likewise condemns the traditions of men.
However, St. Paul endorses the traditions/teachings received from him
and the other disciples either through direct preaching (word) or epistles
(letters). Thus, it should be
clear that any tradition taught by St. Paul and the others should be
reflected in the writings that make up the New Testament.
In fact, this is the standard to use to determine the veracity of
hypothesized traditions, whether they are true apostolic traditions or the
traditions of men.
Back
to top
Latter-Day Saints (LDS) teach that the Book of Mormon is another
testament of Jesus Christ, a continuing revelation given by Jehovah to
prophetic descendants of Israel in America between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D. According to Joseph Smith, junior, these revelations were
recorded on golden plates. However,
the plates were lost some time after 421 A.D.
According to Smith, an angel calling himself Moroni appeared and
led him to the plates which were buried in upstate New York. According to LDS teaching, Joseph Smith translated the
messages on the plates from reformed Egyptian to English “by the gift
and power of God” in a 3-month period in the late 1820s.
After Smith completed his translation, Moroni took the plates and
left. One of the traditions
taught by some sects of Mormonism is that after He grew to manhood, Jesus
took three wives: Lazarus’
sisters, Mary and Martha, and Mary of Magdalene.
Is this teaching true? Not
according to Scriptures which contain the complete teachings of Jesus and
the apostles, including all the traditions taught by them.
St. Jude confirms that, as of his time, there were no new
revelations to be forthcoming:
“Beloved,
while I was making every endeavor to write to you about our common
salvation, I found it necessary to write to you, exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
[St. Jude 3]
Thus, according to St. Jude, the faith (teachings and apostolic
traditions) had been delivered (completed) by the time he wrote his
epistle which would have been no later than 95 A.D.
Thus, the Scriptures, and the traditions revealed therein, do not
support the teaching that Jesus was married.
Therefore, this teaching must be from the traditions of men.
In His words of comfort to His followers, Jesus revealed that He
still had many things to tell them but that they could not bear them at
that time. However, He
promised to send the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit) to teach them all
truth:
“Many
things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all
the truth.” [St. John 16:12-13]
Note Jesus’ words carefully.
He told them He had more to say to them, His contemporaries.
He also promised that the Spirit of truth would teach them
all the truth. It is
important to understand that Jesus’ words were directed to His
disciples, not to some future, universal Church or its leaders, or
councils, which had not even been established at that time [see Acts 2:41
and 47]. If the Holy Spirit was coming to lead His disciples into all
the truth, then those in subsequent generations should not expect
additional truths beyond those revealed in Scripture. This is confirmed in the last chapter of the Apocalypse [see
Apocalypse 22:18-19]. Failure
to appreciate this fact has led to numerous false teachings which have
resulted in Satanic lies called post-Scriptural revelations by adherents.
The Koran is but one example.
The Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, came on the Day of Pentecost
when they were gathered in the upper room with one accord, as recorded by
St. Luke in Acts 2:4. Thus,
the teaching of all truth by the Holy Spirit began soon after Jesus’
ascension into heaven. Moreover,
Jesus promised also that the Holy Spirit would bring to their minds
all things that He (Jesus) had taught them [St. John 14:26].
St. Paul knew that the Holy Spirit was working in his and the other
disciples’ lives to bring about the complete revelation of truth
promised by Jesus before His ascension.
Moreover, he knew, too, that these truths were being written down
as they were revealed. St.
Paul noted:
“For
we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect (complete)
has come, that which is imperfect (not complete) will be done away
with.” [I Corinthians 13:9-10]
Many biblical exegetes interpret this verse to refer to the
completion of the books of the New Testament.
In the verses previous to these, St. Paul tells us that prophecy
and speaking in tongues will cease. He
tells us in subsequent verses that,
“We see now (prior to the completion and recording of revelation by
the Holy Spirit) through a mirror in an obscure manner, but then (when
complete) face to face.” [I Corinthians 13:12]
All will be revealed. There
will no longer be any hidden things.
Translated into today’s language, the verses cited above reveal
that shortly before His trial began, Jesus told His followers He had more
to say to them but that He knew they could not bear to hear it at that
time. However, He promised to send the Holy Spirit who would grow their
faith and understanding and lead them into all truth.
Moreover, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would affect their
memories by recalling to their minds all that He had taught them.
As St. Paul was writing his epistles, he knew that St. Peter and
St. John and the others were doing likewise.
While it is not recorded in the New Testament that Jesus told any
of His disciples to write down anything, St. Paul, a trained Pharisee, as
well as the other apostles, were well versed in the Law and the Prophets.
As such, they would have been thoroughly familiar with God’s call
to the Old Testament prophets to “... note it diligently in a book, and
it shall be in the latter days for a testimony for ever.” [Isaias 30:8]
God told Moses to write many things, as recorded in the books of
Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. God
commanded the same of the prophets as recorded in the books of Proverbs,
Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, and Habacuc.
Moreover, His disciples had often heard Jesus say, “It is
written,” and scold the Pharisees for not knowing God’s Word.
St. Paul and the other apostles understood that the purpose of the
Holy Spirit bringing all things Jesus taught them to their minds was so,
as with Isaias’ and the others’ writings,
it could be noted diligently in a book so that it would serve in
the latter days (the days following Jesus’ ascension) as a testimony for
ever. St. John confirms this:
“This
is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things (the things
Jesus taught and did), and who has written these things ....” [St.
John 21:24]
Moreover, St. John goes on to record:
“There
are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of
these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold
the books that would have to be written.
Amen.” [St. John 21:25]
Thus, St. John clearly reveals that many of the things Jesus did
were being written down. Also, the disciples clearly thought that the Holy Spirit was
active in their ministries as a consolidating and integrating Spirit, as
recorded throughout many books of the New Testament. For example, St. Luke records one of many such testimonies,
this one concerning the things new converts must avoid:
“For
the Holy Spirit and we have decided to lay no further burden upon
you but this indispensable one, that you abstain from things sacrificed to
idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from immorality; keep
yourselves from these things, and you will get on well.” [Acts 15:28-29]
Notice the words, “For the Holy Spirit and we have decided
....” This and many other
verses express an intimate working with the Holy Spirit.
Thus, it is no wonder that St. Paul confesses in I Corinthians
13:9-10:
“For
we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect
has come, that which is imperfect will be done away with.”
The conclusion to be drawn, based upon Jesus’ words and the
Scriptures, is that all truths to be revealed and all apostolic traditions
to be followed had been revealed and were being followed by the end of the
apostolic age (around 95 A.D.), as recorded in the writings that make up
the New Testament. Those
individual writings were in wide circulation among the early churches and
later assembled into a compendium which today we call the New Testament.
Thus, things practiced under the rubric of tradition by various
denominations today may be placed in one of two categories:
apostolic tradition or non-apostolic tradition.
The non-apostolic traditions may be further divided into traditions
that are not at odds with the Scriptures and those that are counter to
things taught in Scripture. Traditions
practiced that are counter to Scripture are what Jesus termed
“traditions of men.” Such traditions render God’s Word impotent and Jesus and
the disciples therefore condemned them.
Back
to top
Now let’s examine the hypothesis suggested by several
denominations that it was the tradition of the early Christians to meet
for worship on the Sabbath, Saturday.
St. Luke reveals the answer:
“And
on the first day of the week, when we had met for the breaking of bread,
Paul addressed them ....” [Acts 20:7]
Christians met for the breaking of bread (worship) not on the
Sabbath, but on the first day of the week.
St. Paul confirms this:
“On
the first day of the week, let each one of you put aside ... whatever he
has a mind to, so that the collection ....” [I Corinthians 16:2]
St. Paul is discussing what today we call the collection plate.
That day of worship is referred to as the Lord’s day [Apocalypse 1:10]. Thus, we can conclude that early Christians did not meet to
worship on Saturday. If they
had, it would not be recorded otherwise (first day of the week) in the
Scriptures. The New Testament
records that St. Paul and the others entered the synagogues of the Jews on
Sabbaths, not to worship with fellow believers, but to preach Jesus
resurrected to the unbelieving Jews [see Acts 13:5] and any Greeks,
Gentiles, and women in attendance [see Acts 17:2-4].
It is perhaps worth noting also that the early Christians did not
refer to this day as Sunday. The
word Sunday comes from a combination of pagan words meaning the “Sun’s
day.” The word Sunday was
not coined until early in the 4th century when the Roman
Emperor, Constantine the Great (274-337 A.D.), himself a worshiper of the
Roman sun god Sol, married a large segment of “Christianity,” but not
all of it, to the pagan state of Rome. 1
More will be said later about Constantine and his influence on
Christianity.
Returning to the question of our original hypothesis, we must
conclude that the teaching that the early Christians met for worship
services on the Sabbath is among the traditions of men.
It should be noted that traditions not mentioned in the New
Testament are acceptable as long as they are not contradicted by the Word
of God. For example, many
denominations meet for worship services on various days of the week in
addition to the Lord’s day [see Hebrews 10:25].
Let us now examine the meaning of the word saint.
A typical definition found in a dictionary refers to a saint as
“a person considered holy and worthy of public veneration, especially
one who has been canonized.” According
to the Roman Catholic Church, “The saints are those in heaven who came
through the difficulties of this life victoriously and are now chosen
friends of God.” 2 The Orthodox Churches hold similar views.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, canonization is the final
act of a lengthy and formal process that begins with beatification. The
decree of beatification is an official declaration that a person lived a
holy life and therefore can be venerated.
Canonization conveys the title of “saint.”
In the Orthodox Churches, the process of canonization is less
formal and is carried out by local synods of bishops.
The definition of canonization contained in the “Catholic
Doctrinal Guide” states:
“The
solemn pronouncement by which the Pope declares that worship (different
kind of worship from that given to God) is to be given to a saint ...
and it must be proved that two miracles have been subsequently wrought at
his intercession ....” 3
This is a rather impressive view of a saint.
One common aspect of all these definitions is that the “saint”
is deceased, that is, out of the body.
To determine the veracity of this supposition, let’s use as our
working hypothesis that one requirement for being a saint is that the
person to be pronounced a saint must be dead and, therefore, out of the
body.
The word saint or saints is used in the bible about one hundred
times: thirty-five times in
the Old Testament and sixty-two times in the New Testament.
There is no doubt that the word saint(s) is used in the Roman
Catholic Bible to refer to believers who are in the body, rather than to
the dead. St. Paul says in
Romans 15:25, “Now, however, I will set out for Jerusalem to minister to
the saints.” Moreover,
St. Paul begins many of his epistles with the word saints in his
salutation:
“...
to all God’s beloved who are in Rome, called to be saints ....”
[Romans 1:7]
“...
to the church of God at Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ
Jesus and called to be saints with all who call upon the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ ....” [I Corinthians 1:2]
“...
to the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints that
are in the whole of Achaia ....” [II Corinthians 1:1]
Without exception, the Roman Catholic Bible refers to saints as
believers who are among the living and, therefore, in the body.
It is recorded in St. Matthew 27:52:
“And
the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen
asleep (died) arose.”
Even in this verse, the saints are alive and in the body.
Thus, in examining our hypothesis we must conclude that the Roman
Catholic, Orthodox, and other’s teaching on what constitutes a saint is
among the traditions of men. In fact, the earliest acknowledged instance of a solemn
decree of canonization by the Catholic Church is that of Ulric, Bishop of
Augsburg, declared a saint by Pope John XV in 993, some nine hundred years
after completion of the writings of the New Testament. Prior to this, there was no ritual for the designation of
saints in Constantine’s universal Church or by what had evolved into the
Roman Catholic Church around 450 A.D.
All martyrs were considered saints.
It is somewhat ironic to note that St. Ulric was one of the many
bishops who argued against the Roman Catholic Church’s position
requiring celibacy for the clergy. History
records his arguments to have been based on Scripture. 4
“Now
the Spirit expressly says that in after times (after Jesus’ ascension)
some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and
doctrines of devils, speaking lies hypocritically, and having their
conscience branded (cauterized, which results in thick scar tissue
which cannot be penetrated). They
will forbid marriage ....” [I Timothy 4:1-3]
“Let
marriage be held in honor with all, and let the marriage bed be
undefiled ....” [Hebrews 13:4]
Other saints have not had such an easy time of it as Ulric. For example, the Roman Catholic Church no longer lists the
beloved St. Christopher on its calendar of feasts. At one time, he was venerated as the patron saint of
travelers. The Catholic
Church designated July 25 as his feast day.
Catholic parishes and book stores sold small plastic icons which
the faithful placed on dashboards and hung on rear-view mirrors.
Some wore a talisman bearing what was purported to be his likeness
around their necks for protection. Millions
of Catholics around the world prayed to St. Christopher to protect them,
their families, and their loved ones on journeys long and short.
But poor Christopher faded from dashboard icon into obscurity when
the Church later discovered he never existed.
Nevertheless, many Catholics continued to pray to the bearded man
who, according to Church tradition, ferried the Christ child across the
river on his broad shoulders. Not
surprisingly, when enough of the faithful created enough of an uproar
concerning poor Christopher’s mistreatment by the Church, Rome again
went on the hunt for the sainted one and this time indeed found him.
Thus, Christopher has been restored to sainthood - sort of.
While the Church has now confirmed the existence and sainthood of
Christopher, they have not placed him back on the liturgical calendar.
Therefore, this quasi-saint still has no official feast day!
However, because of tradition, he is still venerated and his feast
day is still celebrated among certain parishes without Rome’s formal
consent.
Joan of Arc was labeled a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church in
1431. Twenty-five years
later, the Church revisited her case and reversed its decision, finding
Joan not to be a heretic after all, but, in fact, a saint.
Unfortunately for St. Joan, by the time the Church admitted its
error and corrected its earlier finding, she had been dead for some
twenty-five years, burned at the stake as a heretic in accordance with the
Church’s initial finding. However,
Pope Benedict XV canonized Joan in 1920.
Her feast day is May 30. St.
Joan rose from executed heretic to heroine and patron saint of France.
After Catholic Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida excommunicated the
Patriarch of Constantinople and the entire Orthodox Church in 1054 and
Patriarch Michael Cerularius reciprocated several days later and
excommunicated the Cardinal and the entire Roman Catholic Church, Pope
Alexander III (1159-1181), in 1171, reserved the right of canonizing
exclusively for the papacy. This
eliminated the possibility of anyone in Orthodoxy being canonized.
Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644), in constitutions promulgated in 1625
and 1634, created more stringent requirements for canonization more than
fifteen hundred years after the books that comprise the New Testament had
been completed. 5 These requirements, in turn, have been
modified since by subsequent popes.
Out of the tradition of venerating men grew the “cult of the
saints.” The bones of
“saints” were dug up, broken, and divided among various and competing
prelates. They were taken back to numerous churches for public
veneration. The Church makes
no apology for its behavior even today.
As Father E. Hayes notes:
“Some
people consider it odd to venerate the relics of saints, but there is
nothing odd about a practice that goes back many thousands of years.
The followers of Buddha, Confucius, and Mohammed have long
venerated the relics of those ancient religious leaders ....6
Born-again Christians are among those who consider it odd to create
so-called “Christian traditions” based on pagan superstitions
associated with the worship of false gods such as Buddha and Confucius.
Moreover, for the record, the universal Church began veneration of
the saints around 375 A.D., more than two hundred and fifty years before
the death and subsequent veneration of Mohammed.
Another tradition introduced from paganism was the use of prayer
beads, called rosaries today. Prayer
beads have been in use for thousands of years and are used even to this
day in: Buddhism, Hinduism,
and Islam. They are used to
count a set number of repetitious prayers in a systematic order recited by
rote. The pagan religions of
Jesus’ day also prayed long litanies to seek favors from their gods.
Jesus may have been referring to these practices when He said:
“And
when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:
for they think that they will be heard for their much speaking.”
[St. Matthew 6:7, KJV]
The use of prayer beads in the U.S. is most often associated with
Roman Catholicism. Traditionally, use of the rosary as a form of Christian
worship was ascribed to the Spanish theologian St. Dominic early in the
13th century. 7 The use of “holy water” in some
denominations is another pagan superstition adopted from Hinduism.
According to legend, the gods placed three drops of holy water into
the Ganges and made the river “sacred.”
Jesus tells us He gives us living water [see St. John 4:10].
With regard to the Roman Catholic definition that saints are
“chosen friends of God,” every believer or born-again Christian
is a friend of God. Jesus
said:
“Greater
love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends.
You are my friends if you do the things I command you.” [St. John
15:13-14]
Jesus laid down His life for the entire world [St. John 3:16].
Those who accept Jesus’ finished work on the cross as atonement
for their sins (believe in Him) and ask Him to be Lord of their
lives (call upon the name of the Lord) are no longer children of
wrath but become adopted sons of God, as we saw in Chapter Four.
These are the ones who “... do the things I command you.”
Back
to top
At the time of Jesus, the Romans were an occupying army in
Palestine and were greatly resented by most Jews.
The aristocratic Herodians were a rare exception.
They were descended from the Idumean line, the children of Esau,
also called Edomites. Therefore,
the decedents of Jacob, the Jews, did not consider the Idumeans to be real
Jews but impostors. Esau, the
firstborn of Isaac and Rebecca, and therefore the rightful heir to the
birthright in the line of Abraham and Isaac, sold his birthright to his
fraternal twin, Jacob, for a serving of bread and lentils (peas) [Genesis
25:27-34]. The prophet
records God’s hate for Esau [Malachias 1:3].
Among the privileges of the birthright were a favored position in
the family, a double portion of the father's assets upon his death
[Deuteronomy 21:17], and a special blessing from the father and the
privilege of leadership of the family [Genesis 43:33].
The inheritance rights of the firstborn were protected by law, so a
father could not give his firstborn’s benefits to a younger son
[Deuteronomy 21:15-17]. Jacob
obtained the birthright legally from Esau, however, and fathered the
twelve tribes after God changed his name from Jacob (which means
supplanter) to Israel (which means prince with God)
[see Genesis 32:29]. Thus,
God’s blessing on the Jews came through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
First
Governor of Galilee and later King of Judea, Herod the Great (the title
owing mostly to the fact that he was the eldest son), along with other
Jewish pawns under his tutelage, played their parts in supporting Roman
authorities and suppressing Jewish uprisings.
They were rewarded well by the Rome.
Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) was in power when Jesus was born.
On the positive side, Herod prevented the Romans from destroying
the rebuilt Jewish Temple. On the negative, he had a history of eliminating whomever he
pleased. Herod suspected his
wife, Mariamne, was planning to betray him.
He murdered her in 14 B.C. When
his two sons by Mariamne found out about their father’s treachery and
confronted him, he had them murdered.
It was said of Herod that it was better to be one of his hogs than
one of his sons - he only butchered his sons and left his hogs to their
own. Only a relatively short
time before his death, Herod dispatched his henchmen to Bethlehem to kill
all male children under two years of age [see Jeremias 30:15-17 and St.
Matthew 2:13-18]. The ageing
Herod did not tolerate any threat to his throne, not even that posed by a
child playing at the hem of his mother’s robe.
By the time Jesus began His public ministry, one of Herod’s many
sons, Herod Antipas, was on the throne.
Antipas outraged many in the Jewish community when he left his wife
and welcomed Herodius, the wife of his half-brother, Philip I, into his
marriage bed [see Leviticus 20:21]. It
was John’s fierce and persistent condemnation of this unholy act that
cost the Baptist, the son of a Temple priest, his head.
Jesus warned His followers about the treachery of Antipas [see St.
Mark 8:15 and St. Luke 13:31-33].
Fomenting just under the uneasy facade of peace maintained by the
Roman Legions in concert with and the ruling Herodians was the
ever-present Jewish messianic expectation.
It was believed by many that arrival of the long-awaited messiah
would lead to Jewish autonomy. Barabbas
was the latest in a long line of hopefuls.
It was known by the people that he and his small band of rebels had
shed Roman soldiers’ blood whenever the opportunity had presented
itself. Moreover, he inspired
others, particularly the young and brash, to take up the sword and drive
out the “Roman dogs.” But
alas, Barabbas’ fate landed him in and out of prison.
Against this backdrop of dashed messianic expectations for a
promised liberator from the House of David [Jeremias 30:7-9], who would
not only overthrow the Romans, but rule the nations - particularly those
that had persecuted the Jews - with a rod of iron [Psalms 2:7-9], came a
soft-spoken itinerant preacher of thirty years age with barely the
required Hebrew minion to follow Him who claimed the messianic title, Son
of David.
Back
to top
Rather than taking up the rod of iron, Jesus took up the olive
branch of peace and preached love toward even one’s enemies.
With regard to interacting with those in authority, He taught “do
not resist an evil person”; “turn the other cheek”; “walk an extra
mile with him who compels you to walk one”; and “if he sues you for
your tunic, give him your cloak also.”
Rather than lay the sword upon the necks of the Roman Centurions
who oppressed His people, He laid His healing hands upon all who believed
in Him and upon their families and cured their infirmities from near and
afar. Most of those looking
for a messiah, a liberator for Palestine, realized they had to look past
Barabbas and the peripatetic preacher.
Few were either surprised or even aware when the Romans put another
messianic disappointment on the cross without so much as a hint of an
uprising [see St. Luke 23:35-39].
After His death, Jesus’ followers scattered as prophesied [St.
Matthew 26:31]. They wept and
lamented, having forgotten, in their grief, His promise that their sorrow
would be turned to joy [St. John 16:20].
A small, heart-broken cadre of family and friends removed Jesus’
body from the cross and took it to a tomb donated by a rich man, Joseph of
Arimathea. They had heard Him
say in life “... the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”
[St. Luke 9:58]. They
were aware of the irony. Neither
did He have a place of His own in death.
Defeated in mind, body, and spirit, the small band of faithful
wrapped Jesus’ lifeless, scared, and bloody body in fine linens and
quickly departed the tomb since the beginning of a Sabbath (a set time,
not necessarily a Saturday) was nearing (6 p.m.) and the Jews were
preparing for the Passover meal the next day [see St. John 19:31].
Jesus was crucified on Thursday at the same time the Passover lambs
were being slain, as will be discussed in the chapter titled Conclusion.
His friends planned to come back after the Pascal Sabbath (Friday)
and the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) to prepare His body with spices and oils
(Sunday morning). What they
didn’t remember in their pain was that Jesus had taught them that it was
impossible to plant a grain of wheat and not have something come up in its
place. They had failed to
understand what He meant when He had told them that He was the bread of
life [St. John 6:48].
“Amen,
amen, I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and
dies, it remains alone. But
if it dies, it brings forth much fruit.” [St. John 12:24-25]
Back
to top
Following His resurrection and appearing, Jesus followers’ sorrow
turned to unbounded joy. They
put away their fear of men and of death and came out of hiding.
They received the Holy Spirit and, because of their verve in
spreading the gospel, became the men and women to whom the world referred
as those “... setting the world in an uproar ....” [Acts 17:6] This is good news for sinners.
Back
to top
It should be understood that Satan viewed Jesus’ death on the
cross and His followers scattering as a victory and the end of God’s
plan for man’s salvation. The
first coming of messiah as the suffering servant, along with His death and
resurrection, were both prophesied and veiled in the Old Testament.
Even the orthodox Jews did not realize the time of their
visitation, as Jesus pointed out [St. Luke 19:44].
Satan had tried to negate God’s promise of a redeemer in Genesis
3:15 by eliminating the people of God, the Jews, through wars, idolatry,
and intermarriage. He planted the seeds of jealousy in Herod’s heart which led
him to destroy all male newborns in Bethlehem, the prophesied place of the
redeemer’s birth [Micheas 5:2]. Satan
again failed in his effort.
Make no mistake about it. Satan
has a working plan to keep man and God out of fellowship. A part of that plan has been to destroy God’s chosen
people, the Jews, because they play necessary roles regarding salvation
during all ages, beginning in
Old Testament times, as discussed above [see St. John 4:22].
The Jews figure prominently in the salvation message during the
seven-year period known as the Tribulation Period which takes place some
time after the end of the church age, after the rapture. More will be said about these things later.
The reason Satan hates man is jealousy.
Lucifer, the highest of all God’s creations, was created to be a
servant of the LORD.
He was created perfect in his ways. However, Lucifer wanted to be “like” God.
But God made man in His image, not the angels, and not
Lucifer. This is why Satan
hates mankind. We have what
Lucifer always wanted, we were created in the image of God.
In his jealous hatred for mankind and God, Satan continually tries
to isolate man from God’s love, blessings, and promise of salvation.
Never mistake the real person of Satan for “an evil force” in
the universe or “the dark side.”
You make that mistake to the detriment of your eternal soul.
Realize also that God brings good from what Satan intends for evil. In other words, God uses even Satan to bring about His will.
Satan never really knew who Jesus was.
It must be remembered that Jesus was not in an earthly body when
Satan rebelled. Jesus only
took on human form with His incarnation.
In fact, Satan may not have even known about the Trinity prior to
Jesus’ incarnation. This may be why God did not explicitly reveal in the
Old Testament that the Messiah would be not a man, but deity.
Also, since His body was prepared by the Father [Hebrews 10:5],
Satan was not sure who Jesus was at their first encounter in the desert. God must have revealed to Satan that Jesus was the Son of God
because Satan prefaced his first two tests of Jesus with, “If thou are
the Son of God.” [St. Matthew 4:3 and 6]
Remember, too, that Jesus was led into the desert by the Holy
Spirit to be tempted by Satan. Satan
did not find Jesus, rather, Jesus was taken to Satan.
Since he did not know who Jesus really was, the Son of God,
or understand what His mission was, to die for the sins of the world,
Satan stirred up the angry mob to call out to Pilate “Crucify him!
Crucify him!” This
was Satan’s second biggest mistake.
His first was rebellion against God.
Satan mistakenly thought that with Jesus’ death would come the
destruction of God’s plan for reconciliation with mankind.
When Satan saw Jesus die on the cross, he certainly thought he had
been successful in obviating God’s plan to restore fellowship between
Himself and man. He had no
way of knowing that his call for Jesus’ crucifixion was actually moving
God’s plan for restoration, put together in eternity past, forward.
Satan was astonished when he learned that Jesus had risen from
the grave and that by His death many would be saved.
Satan had to devise yet another plan to keep mankind alienated from
God.
Back
to top
Often the world and even some believers have a hard time
understanding that God and Satan are not opposite sides of the same coin.
There is no cosmic struggle of good against evil.
God and Satan are not on the same level.
The only thing they have in common is that they are both working
their respective plans. God
is still working His original plan to bring about the salvation of all who
will accept His free gift. He
has never had to change a single aspect of His plan which was drawn up in
eternity past. Satan is, as he always has been, working his plan and
modifying it as necessary to destroy man’s opportunity to recognize and
accept that free gift. God
will succeed. I’ve read the
book. I know the ending. You can, too! Satan
will have only the measure of success allotted to him by God in this age,
but none in eternity future.
The idea of duality between God and Satan is reinforced by our
culture. Remember the black
comedian, Flip Wilson, and his successful television comedy in the 1970s,
The Flip Wilson Show? The
line he is best remembered for is one his female character, Geraldine,
introduced into our daily lexicon: with
a loud snap of her fingers and a shake of her head, Geraldine would say,
“the devil made me do it.” Flip
portrayed Geraldine as a woman of questionable virtue, a relatively clean
portrayal by today’s diminished standards.
However, Satan is nothing to laugh about.
Numerous novels, movies, and cult religions also have suggested
duality between God and Satan. One
so-called “Christian” ministry teaches that after Jesus died on the
cross, He descended into hell where He was tortured by Satan for three
days to pay man’s sin debt! It
should be understood, however, that the debt for sin is owed to God, not
Satan. Moreover, Satan has
not yet spent so much as one day in hell [Job 1:6-7 and 2:1-2].
Satan is the god of this world [II Corinthians 4:4] and,
during the present age, he continues to have access to earth and the
heavens [Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2; and St. Luke 4:1-13].
However, he is subject to the providential will of God and is
therefore limited in the evil he can do because he is restrained by the
power of the Holy Spirit who came at Pentecost to indwell believers.
Thus, this restraining power resides within believers.
And when all believers of this age are taken off this earth at the
rapture [I Thessalonians 4:13-18], to be discussed more fully in the
chapter titled Conclusion, then lawlessness will greatly increase [II
Thessalonians 2:6-10]. However,
the day is coming when Satan will no longer have access to heaven [see
Apocalypse 12:7-8].
Satan is a subtle seducer of souls.
He wants people to believe that those under his influence are
demonically possessed and that they run around foaming at the mouth,
turning their heads through three hundred and sixty degrees, and using
telekinesis to move objects on the other side of a room, as portrayed in
many novels and movies. He
also likes to be caricatured as the cute, comedic-looking little red
fellow with a tail, horns, and pitchfork.
Such portrayals lead many to dismiss his existence - a fatal error.
However, Satan is referred to by name more than fifty times in the
Scriptures, eighteen in the Old Testament and thirty-six in the New
Testament. He is referred to
as either “the devil” (there are many devils or demons) or as
“the evil one” around forty times in the New Testament.
Some say they believe in evil but not in a literal Satan and his
demons. Jesus believes he is
a personality. In fact, Jesus
referred to him by name, as recorded in all four gospels! [St. Matthew
4:10, St. Mark 3:23, St. Luke 4:8, and St. John 13:27]
No concept of duality is even suggested in the Scripture.
Moreover, Satan is not omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all
powerful), or omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). Neither does he know the future nor can he read your mind.
What he does have is an army of fallen angels, the Nephelium,
demons, also called devils, to help him carry out and integrate his
damnable plans. When one of
Satan’s cabal whispers a non-audible suggestion in your ear, it’s not
because he can discern what you are thinking.
It is because he sees where your eyes are or were focused - maybe
on an attractive woman, or something you want but can’t afford that is
within your physical grasp. “Take
it,” he suggests. “No one
will ever know.” If one is
not on guard, he will soon be in the demon’s snare and, without the
freeing power of Jesus in one’s life,
the only path is down and down and down.
Neither Satan nor the Nephelium have spirits attuned to the things
of God. Their spirits were
cut off at the time of their rebellion in heaven [Isaias 14:12-15].
When Satan reads the Scriptures, and he is versed in them [see St.
Matthew 4:6], he gets no more understanding of the spiritual message
contained within [see St. Matthew 4:7] than the man or woman who reads the
Scriptures with an unregenerated spirit (see Chapter Four). The promise of a new covenant in Jeremias 31:31-34 meant
nothing to him. Satan has
neither ears to hear nor eyes to see [Ezechiel 12:2].
Like others with unregenerated spirits, Satan believes that the
Scriptures are just so much collected distillations of the minds of men. In his blinding pride, Satan believes he can defeat God.
However, his final fate is clear [see Isaias 46:10].
Satan will battle God and man until finally he is cast into “...
the pool of fire and brimstone ...” wherein he will be “... tormented
day and night forever and ever.” [Apocalypse 20:9-10]
Back
to top
Satan’s first attempt to kill off the small community of
believers known as the Way and stop the spread of the faith was through
the efforts of some of the unbelieving, zealous Jews.
One particular Jew described himself as having been:
“...
circumcised on the eighth day (the day appointed by God for
circumcision), of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a
Hebrew of Hebrews; as regards the Law, a Pharisee; as regards zeal, a
persecutor of the Church of God (the Way); as regards the justice
of the Law, leading a blameless life.” [Philippians 3:5-6]
In other words, he described himself as the Jewish ideal.
Moreover, this particular Pharisee presided over the murder of St.
Stephen, the first Christian martyr [Acts 7:60].
Still breathing threats of slaughter against the disciples of the
Lord, this Pharisee asked the high priest in Jerusalem for letters to the
synagogues in Damascus such that if he found any men or women belonging to
“this Way,” he might bring them back to Jerusalem bound (with chains)
for trial and execution [Acts 9:1-2].
This Pharisee’s name was Saul.
He and his compatriots were used by Satan in an attempt to stop
Christianity. However, Jesus
reoriented Saul’s thinking one day and Saul changed his attitude.
Saul thought of himself as blameless, that is, sinless,
because the lawyers perverted the Word of God.
Whereas God’s Word clearly taught that sin begins in the heart as
a thought and that that thought itself is a sin, the Pharisees taught that
one must actually act upon the thought for it to be sin.
After having met the living Christ and coming to understand that
even the thought of breaking God’s Law is sin, St. Paul was horrified
[see St. Matthew 5:28]. He realized that he was a sinner after all.
Moreover, in I Timothy 1:15, St. Paul refers to himself as chief
of all sinners.
Whereas Satan manipulated Saul to get him to kill a relatively
small number of early Christians, God used St. Paul mightily to convert
multitudes of Jews, Greeks, and other Gentiles to grow His church.
Defeated once again, Satan expanded his persecution strategy.
Back
to top
At first, the Roman Emperor paid little attention to the goings-on
among what were considered to be feuding sects of continuously feuding
Jews, the Sadducees against the Pharisees, and the Scribes at times
opposing both. And among the
feuding factions, there was much disputation.
The liberal Sadducees, like many Churches today, denied the
inerrancy of Scripture; the resurrection of the body; and the existence of
angels. The conservative
Pharisees believed in all three. When
the Sadducees came to Jesus and described a woman who had been married to
seven men and asked whose wife she would be in the next life, they were
trying to trap Him. Jesus
unloaded on these duplicitous Sadducees with both barrels:
“‘...
Is not this why you err - because you know neither the Scriptures
nor the power of God? For when
they rise from the dead, they will neither marry nor be given in
marriage, but are as the angels in heaven.
But as to the dead rising, have you not read the book of Moses
about the Bush, how God spoke to him saying, “I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
You are therefore entirely wrong.’” [St. Mark 12:24-27]
In His response to a single question, Jesus addressed three major
errors in the Sadducees’ thinking:
the importance and relevance of Scriptures, the resurrection of the
body, and the existence of angels! Moreover,
His accusing them of not having read the book of Moses was about as close
to a kick in the shins as Jesus ever came to physical violence.
At other times, Jesus addressed the errors of the Pharisees.
By the time of Jesus’ birth, centuries of internecine fighting
among the various sects had led to a practiced
Judaism wholly corrupted by the traditions of men [see St. Matthew
23:13-39].
After Jesus’ ascension, St. Peter and the rest of the disciples,
along with the newly converted St. Paul, preached the gospel to all who
would listen. As long as the
Pax Romana was maintained, the Emperor was content to let the many
religious factions worship in whatever manner they chose and preach
anything they wanted so long as it was not antithetical to the interests
of Rome or the Emperor.
Back
to top
This laissez faire attitude changed after Nero, murderer of both
his mother and wife, became Emperor (60-68).
After he torched two-thirds of the city to make way for his rebuilt
Rome, Nero blamed the Christians for the conflagration.
As punishment, he began the first of what evolved into ten waves of
persecution by Roman Emperors. Among
his contrived tortures was covering Christians with pitch, tethering them
to poles, and igniting their flesh in the evening to provide light along
the footpaths meandering through his gardens.
Nero made Christianity an outlaw religion. It was during this time that St. Paul was beheaded and St.
Peter was crucified (upside down at his own request). Nero was of the spirit of antichrist!
Subsequent Emperors increased the types and levels of persecution
for Christians who refused to make the required worship offerings of
incense to their Emperor. The
Christians were not hated and persecuted because they worshiped Jesus, but
because they worshiped no other gods in addition to Him.
The Emperor knew he was no less a god than the crucified rabbi the
stubborn Christians refused to deny.
Emperors Domitian (81-96 A.D.), Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Marcus
Aurelius (161-180 A.D.), Severus (193-211 A.D.), Maximinus (235-238 A.D.),
Decius (249-251 A.D.), Valerian (253-260 A.D.), Aurelian (270-275 A.D.),
and, finally, Diocletian (284-305 A.D.), all tried to end Christianity and
its spread by maintaining its outlaw status and killing Christians.
It was a simple and straightforward, Satanically inspired approach.
The Emperors also used Christians for sport in the arena for
entertainment of the pagan masses. Believers
were torn to pieces by wild, ravenous beasts; boiled in oil in large vats
over open flames as a public spectacle; slowly roasted alive over red-hot
coals; and subjected to other tortures that the most depraved minds could
conjure. Persecution reached
a new zenith under Emperor Diocletian.
He had so many tens of thousands of Christians killed that in 303
A.D. he had a state coin struck bearing the words:
“Diocletian, the Emperor who destroyed the Christian name.”
8 Still, the faith
spread and spirit-filled Christians refused to deny their Lord.
This infuriated some of their persecutors but caused others to
repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Believers met their fate in the arena amidst the singing of hymns
and psalms. It is estimated
that during the ten waves of persecution some five million Christians were
martyred for their testimony of Jesus the Christ. 9
Back
to top
Those Christians who escaped the persecutions fellowshipped in
secret, meeting in small groups in each others’ homes.
They carried out the Lord’s command to be witnesses [Acts 1:8]
and faced the possibility of death with each testimony.
Often, families didn’t have the opportunity to bury loved ones
killed in the persecutions. Their
ashes and broken bodies were disposed of by the state in the burning trash
heaps outside the cities. The
Christians had no certainty in this life.
Their only certainty was in the life of the world to come. They could sing hymns and recite psalms as they were torn
apart in the arena and boiled in oil because, like St. Paul, St. Peter,
and St. Jude, they were certain of their eternal destinies.
They believed as they looked into the faces of the charging lions
in one moment that in the next they would be looking into the face of
their loving Lord and Savior. They
longed to hear His promised words: “well
done, good and faithful servant.” [St. Matthew 25:21]
The blood of the martyrs served only to strengthen the resolve of
the faithful and expand the gospel throughout the Empire. Satan realized once again that his plan to kill Christianity
from the outside was failing.
Some mistakenly argue that it is presumptuous of the believer to
think he knows his eternal destiny. Moreover,
the Council of Trent decreed:
“If
anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the
guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to
every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be
discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven
can be opened, let him be anathema.”
However, this decree is in direct opposition to the teachings
contained in the Roman Catholic Bible, as evidenced by St. Paul’s, St.
Peter’s, and St. Jude’s words prior to dying, as discussed in Chapter
Four. Moreover, the Roman
Catholic Bible assures believers that they abide in God and He in them and
that love is perfected among us, one for another, through this abiding
love. Therefore, God’s Word
assures us that “... we may have confidence in the day of judgment
....” [I St. John 4:17] If
one cannot know he is saved, then how can one have confidence in his
judgment, his eternal destiny? The
question is rhetorical. There
is no answer. Its purpose is
simply to point out how ridiculous is the notion that one cannot know of
his salvation! Moreover, the Roman Catholic Bible assures believers,
“exiled from the body, at home with the Lord.” [ II Corinthians 5:8]
Believing God’s Word is not presumptuous.
Rather, it is living faith. To
not believe Jesus’ words on eternal life is not to be humble. It is to be disobedient! Belief
is standing on the promises of God given in His Holy Word.
The reason why Jesus came to earth was to seek and to save that
which was lost [St. Luke 19:10]. He
left no room for ambiguities except for those created by the minds of
those whose spirits have not been regenerated and the double-minded [St.
James 1:7-8]. Jesus never
once told anyone to be uncertain about his eternal destiny.
He made clear to the Scribes and Pharisees their eternal destinies,
“... unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and
Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” [St. Matthew
5:20] Jesus’ words are
clear, very clear. On the
other hand, Jesus told His followers, His sheep, “And I give them
everlasting life; and they shall never perish....” [St. John 10:28]
This is a double promise - everlasting life and never perishing.
Again, very clear. Whether or not one readily accepts the veracity
of God’s promises seems to be dependent on one’s experience with
one’s earthly father.
When I was a young child I came to understand that my father’s
word meant something not only to me but also to him - exactly what he
said. I have heard it
preached often that a child’s first impression of what God is like is
based on his experiences with his earthly father.
My father promised to take me hunting on Thanksgiving Day.
It was a standing promise. I
was too young to shoot the 12-gauge - it would have knocked me down - so
he would place the butt of the gun on his thigh and let me pull the
trigger. We never saw any
game but that didn’t matter. My
father kept his promise year after year after year.
My dad used to play pitch and hit with me.
I couldn’t catch or hit the ball, but my father never criticized
my inabilities in this or any other area.
Moreover, he always had time for me.
He even attended many of my little league baseball games.
My complete lack of talent resulted in my “warming the bench”
most of the game for most of the games.
We weren’t wealthy but when my dad would return from a business
trip, he always brought something for me.
Often it was little bars of soaps from the hotels where he stayed.
I had a rather large collection of which I was very proud.
It wasn’t the gifts. It
was the fact that he always remembered to bring his son something.
When I was in the sixth grade (1959), he told me if I made average
grades in all my classes he would take me on an airplane ride.
The pilot let me sit in the co-pilot’s seat while the co-pilot
sat in the back of the largely empty plane talking with my father.
My dad told me years later that when he came up front to retrieve
me, my eyes were as big as big could be.
When I was fifteen, he told me he would let me sit behind the wheel
and teach me to drive when we visited my uncle’s farm.
I was making circles in a weed field before crop circles came into
vogue. Before I went off to
college, my father told me not to worry about paying for school, just
study and make good grades, that he and mother would pay for all of it.
My education didn’t cost me a cent.
When I was thinking of buying my first house, my father told me
that he and mother wanted to help out.
They did. I cannot
remember a single time, not one, when my dad didn’t deliver.
Although I was too young to realize it at the time, this was my
first impression of what God was like and probably why I can so readily
trust in Him.
Back
to top
In 313 A.D., the new western Emperor, Constantine (306-337), later
known to the world as Constantine the Great and erroneously to many
Churches as the first Christian Emperor, issued a joint Edict of
Toleration with his co-Emperor in the east, Licinius.
The edict allowed freedom of worship for all religions in the Roman
Empire. For the first time in
more than two hundred years, Christianity was not an outlaw religion. It was no longer a state crime punishable by death to admit
to being a follower of Jesus. However,
as will be discussed later, this also presented an impetus for those who
really were not followers of Jesus to claim that they were. Prior to issuance of the Edict, the world noticed differences
in conduct between Christians and nonbelievers.
After, some claiming to be Christian continued to act the same way
they had acted in the world prior to their alleged conversions.
Thus, in prompting Constantine to issue his Edict of Toleration,
Satan created a false Christianity which has led many to perdition.
If there is no changed life, then there is no spiritual
regeneration and, hence, no Holy Spirit working within the person to
empower him to crucify his flesh [see Galatians 5:24 and I St. John 4:4].
Thus, such a one is lost.
What is known about Constantine is that his mother, Helena, was a
supposed Christian convert who claimed to have found the cross upon which
Jesus was crucified. It is
not surprising that the same cross upon which an itinerant preacher of no
worldly importance was crucified and which was subsequently lost to
history for some three hundred years was miraculously found by the
Emperor’s soldiers when told by the Emperor’s mother to do so.
Failure would have resulted in their deaths.
While this author has no knowledge of the whereabouts of Jesus’
cross, I would not be surprised if at the Great White Throne Judgment the
unbeliever, the child of disobedience, finds himself standing before the
Great White Throne in the presence of His cross and His
spilled blood. I believe it
is at this point that the fulfillment of prophecy will be achieved which
says “every knee shall bend and every mouth confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Philippians 2:10-11]
Believers will have already confessed that Jesus is Lord while in
their bodies [Romans 10:9]. Thus, believers do not come into judgment but have passed
from death to life [St. John 5:24] and will not face Jesus as Judge at the
Great White Throne, which is the judgment only of the damned [see
Apocalypse 20:11].
Back
to top
Constantine is renowned for being the first “Christian”
Emperor. History records that in the year 312 A.D., just one year
prior to his issuance of the Edict of Toleration, Constantine claimed that
no less than Jesus appeared to him in a dream and told him to inscribe the
first two letters of His name, Chi-Rho (XP in Greek), on the
shields of his armies. The
next day, Constantine claimed to have seen a heavenly vision:
a cross superimposed on the sun and the words “in hoc signo
vinces” - “in this sign you will be victorious.”
Constantine did indeed defeat his rival, Maxentius, at the Battle
of the Milvian Bridge and, as history records, became a “Christian” in
that same year. Constantine
generally is credited by historians with expanding Christianity throughout
the Roman Empire. However,
the symbol Constantine saw in the heavens had meaning not just for
Christians, but also for pagans because it also looked like the Egyptian
“ankh,” a cross shaped like a T with a loop at the top (the sun).
This symbol is still used today by some Churches.
The more astute may also realize that Jesus’ name is not Christ!
Thus, Constantine’s vision was phony on its face.
The “Jesus” that appeared to him was not the Jesus of the New
Testament. More is said about the source of this and other visions later.
The Greek word Christ and Hebrew word Messiah are both titles. They both mean the “anointed one.”
What generally is not known about Constantine is that even after
his so-called conversion to Christianity, he continued worshiping his
pagan gods in their pagan temples right along with his new-found Christian
god. Constantine was the
first “Christian” ecumenist and the one who introduced the damnable
heresy of ecumenism into Christianity.
Moreover, his widely known vision of a cross superimposed on the
sun was not his first. Two
years before, in 310 A.D., Constantine had a vision of the Sun god, Sol,
while worshiping in the grove (a place of pagan worship) of Apollo in
Gaul. This may explain why in
his second vision the cross was not alone, as it certainly would have been
if the vision were from God, but superimposed on the sun, not
replacing it. This, of
course, would violate God’s own commandment to have no other gods beside
Me [Exodus 20:3]. However, it
explains why Constantine went on worshiping Sol and his new
Christian god who, in Constantine’s mind, had brought him his latest
victory, just as Sol had brought him earlier ones.
Mohammad had a similar vision some three hundred years later and,
as a result, wrote the Koran, the holy book of Islam.
A young Joseph Smith, junior, had visions in the early 1800s. As a result, he penned the Book of Mormon.
Many Marian (Virgin Mary) visions have been reported since the 12th
century with increasing frequency, including the Fatima appearance in
Portugal. St. Dominic is
generally credited with introducing the rosary into Christian worship in
the 13th century following an apparition of the Virgin Mary in
the company of demons. According
to St. Dominic, Mary forced the demons to reveal to him the efficacy of
prayers to her. 10 With regard to any vision, it is important
to understand that there is more than one source.
The veracity and message of all visions should be checked against
Scripture.
The above are examples of the concept of
“the power behind the power.” An understanding of this concept
comes from Ephesians 6:12. A
related concept in biblical interpretation is called the law of “double
reference.” In Ezechiel 28,
the prophet begins his description of one power.
In verses 2 through 11, he is referred to as the prince of
Tyre. God, speaking through
the prophet, gives an assessment of the prince’s self-image and it is
not favorable. However, all
that is said of him is within the realm of human experience and potential.
Beginning in the 12th verse, however, the prophet refers
to the king of Tyre (not the prince) and says that he was the seal
of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. When he was in Eden (the garden of God) every precious stone
was his covering. He was the
anointed cherub (an angel), established by God.
He walked on the holy mountain of God.
He was perfect in all his ways from the day of his creation until
iniquity was found in him. Obviously,
this is no longer a description of any man.
In fact, verses 12 through 19 describe the creation and fall of
Lucifer, the angel of light, the highest of all God’s creations.
Isaias 14:12 begins the story of the fall of Lucifer, now known as
Satan, the accuser of the brethren [Apocalypse 12:10].
Back
to top
|
|
We know from II Corinthians 11:14 that “Satan disguises himself
as an angel of light.” Moreover,
we know that Satan is a liar and the father of lies [St. John 8:44].
These two verses tell us that Satan can present visions to people
and that those visions are false. Thus,
all visions are either from God or from Satan.
In Constantine’s first vision, that of Sol, the Sun god, the
source must have been Satan, for God does not present visions of false
gods. His second vision, the
one that showed the a cross superimposed on the sun, indicating that the
Sun god and Jesus were equal, was also from Satan [see Exodus 20:5].
In Mohammad’s vision, he alleged that the angel Gabriel appeared
to him and dictated the Koran. This,
of course, is the same Koran that contradicts the concept of the Trinity
taught in the Scriptures, denies the deity of Jesus, and paints a portrait
of a concupiscent afterlife.
Joseph Smith’s visions began when he was just fourteen years old
and continued until just before his martyrdom in 1844.
According to Smith, a former human being and son of the LDS prophet
Mormon (400 A.D.), Moroni, now the angel Moroni, appeared and led him to
where the “golden plates” were buried.
In fact, Moroni, while in the flesh, was the author of the last
book in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moroni.
The plates contained an encrypted message in a language Smith
didn’t understand. However,
“by the gift and power of God,” he translated the message into the
Book of Mormon. Among other
things, the plates revealed that both Jesus and God the Father were
created beings.
Three young girls claimed that the Virgin Mary appeared to them a
number of times at Fatima in Portugal in 1917.
During one of these apparitions, according to the girls, the Virgin
asked them, “Would you be willing to die for the sins of the world?”
This is a strange question for a believer in Christ and His
supposed mother to ask. First,
the believer understands that the sacrifice for sin must be unblemished,
that is, without sin [see Exodus 12:5 and I St. Peter 1:19].
Even though these were children, could they have been without sin?
Again, the Scriptures are clear on this.
None is without sin [see Romans 3:10-12].
If we say we have no sin, then the truth is not in us and we make
Him a liar [see I St. John 1:8 and 1:10].
There is also the matter that Jesus had already gone to the cross
and paid for the sins of the world [see St. John 19:30].
Given these facts, it must be concluded that the source of the
Fatima vision was the same source as the visions experienced by Joseph
Smith, St. Dominic, Mohammad, and Constantine.
One can also determine that this vision was not from God by
applying the test given us by St. John:
“Beloved,
do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are
of God; because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.
By this (test) is the spirit of God known:
every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the
flesh, is of God. And every
spirit that severs Jesus (segments the Jesus of the New Testament),
is not of God, but is of Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he is
coming, and now is already in the world.” [I St. John 4:1-3]
The Scriptures tell us that the Jesus of the New Testament came to
save us by paying our sin debt and that He was crucified.
Thus, He came in the body for only the body can be crucified.
Only the body can shed blood which is necessary for the remission
of sins. When the apparition
asked the children if they would be willing to pay the sin debt of the
world, it was denying that Jesus had come in the flesh and already paid
that debt. Therefore, the
apparition was not from God, but from antichrist! As already mentioned, many Churches, too, sever Jesus.
They strip away His power as the lawgiver and claim this authority
for themselves.
Back
to top
Today, many are treated to visions.
There is a popular, weekly television show on a major network that
features angels at a time when angel worship is at an all-time high. It would be difficult to deny that the show is uplifting in
the flesh. The
beginning and ending focus on a white dove, reminiscent of Jesus’
baptism. The program uses
many Christian words like the Father, truth, love, and good news.
One of the female stars who plays an angel is said to be an
ordained minister in a mainline denomination.
The angels tell those to whom they appear that they have been sent
by god. Of course, they are very careful not to indicate which god -
Allah, Buddha, Apollo, Zeus, you name it.
After this revelation, a golden aura manifests around their heads
and shoulders. The angels
explain to those to whom they have been sent that, “We are all his
children.” The way it is
done, tears begin to well up in viewers’ eyes.
The creator of this program was interviewed by Reverend Pat
Robertson on his CBN telecast. She
professed to be a believing Christian and said there was no subject the
show was afraid to take on. The
series has dealt with many social issues.
However, there are some subjects the show does not take on:
Jesus, the Son of God, His shed blood, and Him being the only
way to the Father.
When the angels reveal the truth, that they are messengers from
god, they never mention that Jesus is the Truth.
Neither do they mention that God loved the people in this corrupt
world so much that He gave His only-begotten Son to pay their sin debt on
the cross so that any who believe in Him should not perish but have
eternal life. When the angels
say that there is good news, they never mention the good news that God has
a free gift for them through the atoning work of His Son on the cross.
In fact, the word “cross” is not a part of this so-called
Christian series. Neither is
there mention of Calvary or the shedding of blood for the remission of
sin. By erroneously
claiming that we are all children of God, the program is misleading
many into believing that there are indeed many paths to heaven rather than
just one. Believers in Islam who worship Allah and deny the deity of
Jesus will naturally believe that the angels are sent from Allah.
Jehovah’s Witnesses who worship Jehovah and deny the deity of
Jesus will believe that the angels are sent from Jehovah.
And practicing Jews who worship Jehovah and deny the deity of Jesus
will believe that the angels are sent from Jehovah God.
As recorded in St. Mark 16:15, Jesus told His apostles to:
“Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.”
An unbeliever is not a child of God but a creature, that is,
something created by God. Because
he has a dead spirit, he is considered a creature and a child of
disobedience. Only by
accepting the Jesus of the New Testament as Lord and Savior does the
creature become an adopted child of God [see Romans 8:16].
Don’t think you could never be deceived by a false vision,
millions are taken in every week. Most
who think of themselves as Christian, when asked, reply that the series is
Christian. They are deceived. After all, Satan is the prince of the power of the air, as
revealed in Ephesians 2:2.
Back
to top
Another thing that generally is not known about Constantine is that
he, a supposed disciple of Christ, had his son, Crispus, put to death in
326 A.D., some fourteen years after his alleged conversion.
Following more in the footsteps of Herod the Great and Emperor Nero
than Christ, Constantine shortly thereafter had his wife, Fausta,
suffocated in her bath after she was accused by Constantine’s mother,
Helena - later designated St. Helena by the Roman Catholic Church - of
having committed adultery with a household slave. 11
Constantine also had an eleven-year-old nephew and an uncle murdered.
To some, this may sound more like palace intrigue among heathens
than Christian family values. There
is no evidence of a “changed life” in Constantine’s history, no
crucifixion of the flesh, no walking in submission, and no putting on of
the new man, as would be expected if his conversion were true [see
Colossians 3:5-10]. Jesus taught that one could know the tree by its fruit and
multiple murders are a pretty rotten fruit by just about anyone’s
standard [see St. Matthew 7:17-20]. As
recorded in St. John 13:35, Jesus said, “By this will all men know that
you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
By these standards, does it sound like Constantine was a believer?
I can imagine what some are thinking:
“judge not lest ye be judged”!
Back
to top
If there is one “verse of Scripture” everyone knows, it is
“judge not lest ye be judged.” When
someone asks if there is anything wrong with adultery, fornication,
homosexuality, lesbianism, drunkenness, drug addiction, and a multitude of
other sins, some respond piously with “judge not lest ye be judged.”
In a July 27, 2000 interview on the American Broadcasting
Company’s (ABC) 20/20 news show, Governor George Bush was asked
by Ms. Barbara Walters if homosexuality is a sin.
He replied, “Who am I to say?
I’m a sinner, too.” Governor
Bush’s response is addressed more fully in Appendix A.
The only problem with quoting this verse is ...
there is no such verse in Scripture!
“Judge not lest ye be judged” is not biblical.
It is Satanic.
Back
to top
Believers are commanded to judge [see St. Luke 7:43, and
12:57; and St. John 7:24]. Contending
for the faith requires judgment [St. Jude 3].
No less authority than St. Paul tells us that he has judged.
It came to St. Paul’s attention that a man at the church of
Corinth was living in an open incestuous relationship with a woman.
St. Paul writes to the church at Corinth:
“For
I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged
(as though I were present) him who has done this deed.” [I Corinthians
5:3]
The fact that St. Paul does not address the woman in his remarks
may be indicative that the woman was not a believer.
St. Paul exhorts church members to deal with such matters and tells
them how:
“But
now I write to you not to associate with one who is called a brother, if
he is immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or evil-tongued, or a
drunkard, or greedy; with such a one not even to take food.
For what have I to do with judging those outside (non-believers). Is it not those inside (believers in your church) whom
you judge? For those outside
God will judge. ‘Expel the
wicked man from your midst.’” [I Corinthians 5:11-13]
The Satanic lie, “judge not,” is based on a twisted and
isolated interpretation of St. Matthew 7:1.
However, as stressed before, one must examine any verse within its
context and determine if it is consistent with or contradictory to other
verses of Scripture on the same subject:
“Do
not judge, that you may not be judged.
For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with
what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you.
But why dost thou see the speck in thy brother’s eye, and yet
dost not consider the beam in thy own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thy own eye, and then
thou wilt see clearly to cast out the speck from thy brother’s eye.”
[St. Matthew 7:1-5]
By way of context, it is important to know that between St. Matthew
6 and 7:12, Jesus gives six examples of how He expects His followers to
conduct themselves as opposed to how the Scribes and Pharisees and their
followers conducted themselves. The
last example is that of judging. The
first five are: alms giving
to be seen by man; public prayer with vain repetitions, as the heathen
pray; fasting mixed with affectation to earn men’s approval; wealth as a
sign of God’s acceptance; and anxiety over what tomorrow may bring,
rather than trusting God. Jesus had already said to His disciples “... unless your
justice exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the
kingdom of heaven.” Apparently
the Scribes and Pharisees had developed a habit of making quick and harsh
judgments about others while they themselves were guilty of the same and
even greater sins. By
Jesus’ reference to the speck and the beam, He was revealing that the
Scribes and Pharisees were the greater sinners.
Jesus is simply
pointing out that no man was placed upon the earth, not even Him, whose
job it is to condemn others. The
Scriptures teach, “For God did not send his Son into the world in order
to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” [St.
John 3:17] But note that the
citation does not say to “ignore the speck in a brother’s eye.”
That is, do not tell someone his sin is not sin.
Rather, Jesus is saying that one cannot properly see the speck in
another’s eye if he has a beam in his own!
Remove the beam from your own eye first, then you will be in a
position to more clearly see and remove the speck from your brother’s
eye. If someone asks you if
adultery is a sin, do not equivocate. Reply, “God’s Word calls adultery a sin.
Therefore, it is a sin.” Then
be compassionate in helping that one to get back in God’s will.
Do not bend down to pick up a stone.
Ask yourself, “How would Jesus respond?”
Back
to top
Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” [St. John
14:15] One of Jesus’
commandments was for the believer to be baptized, which symbolizes the
believer’s faith in Jesus’ burial and bodily resurrection:
“He
who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe
shall be condemned.” [St. Mark 16:16]
Contrary to Jesus’ command, Constantine did not follow the Lord
in believer’s baptism after his supposed conversion.
Rather, he waited twenty-five years until he was on his death bed.
12
Back
to top
Was Constantine a true follower of Jesus or a pagan opportunist who
saw a way of uniting a disparate and far-flung Empire through the
enthusiasm of a most resilient and coherent force labeled Christianity? In any event, what is not arguable, according to history, is
that Constantine viewed the Christian god as a god who could help him win
battles and wars and he invited the many disparate churches to join him
and his Empire in building a unified infrastructure that would combine the
temporal power of the Empire with the spiritual power of the churches. In Constantine’s mind, this would make Rome invincible to
armies of invading interlopers. Thus,
in 313 A.D., pagan Rome was married to those many churches that accepted
Constantine’s proposal. However,
as history reveals, not all churches accepted.
Back
to top
Constantine now had the daunting challenge of combining pagan
prelates, religions, and traditions with those of the new state-sponsored
religion, Christianity. Some
pagan traditions and rituals already had slipped into some of the
churches, but certainly not all. This
can be verified from the letters to the seven churches addressed in
Chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Apocalypse.
This final book of the New Testament, which contains a warning
against adding to or subtracting from the things in the book, generally
interpreted to be a prohibition against doing same for all of Scripture,
was written by St. John while he was exiled on the Island of Patmos by
Emperor Domitian around the year 95 A.D.
Contrary to early church tradition, which is documented in the book
of Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament, some churches were not
following the simple structure of a church authorized in Scripture.
Rather than having a bishop (pastor) and several deacons (elders)
to administrate the functions of a single, autonomous church, as
authorized in I Timothy Chapter 3 and Ephesians 4:11, these churches were
constructing hierarchal positions within a single church and of one church
over several churches and the pastor of that one church as an authority
over the pastors of other churches. Such structures and those who belonged
to them were termed Nicolaites. It
is a combination of two Greek words that translate “victory over the
laity.” These same hierarchal structures exist to this day in the
Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and most Protestant denominations.
In Apocalypse 2:6, Jesus commends the church at Ephesus:
“But
this thou hast (commendation):
thou hatest the works of the Nicolaites, which I also hate.”
Again in Apocalypse 2:15-16, Jesus condemns the teaching of the
Nicolaites in His letter to the church at Pergamum:
“So
thou hast also some who hold the teaching of Nicolaites.
In like manner repent, or else I will come to thee quickly, and
will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
Back
to top
Before the time of Constantine, several heresies broke out and
circulated among some of the many churches during the persecutions.
Satan again did his best to destroy God’s plan for mankind’s
restoration with the Almighty by polluting the gospel message. Prior to Constantine, Satan was carrying out a dual strategy
to kill Christianity. He
was using the Emperors to persecute Christians from without and at the
same time raising up false teachers within the churches, just as St. Peter
and St. Paul had warned against [see I Corinthians 15:12 and II St. Peter
2:1]. Both were aware that
Satan had used the prophet Balaam to put into the Moabite king’s head
the idea that the solution is in dilution of the Jewish race (discussed in
Appendix A). In this case,
St. Peter and St. Paul feared that Satan would use false ministers within
the church to dilute the gospel message.
In the same manner that Satan had been unable to kill the
Israelites from without and then tried from within, through Balaam’s
advice to king Balac on intermarriage, St. Peter and St. Paul feared that
Satan would attack the church from within since his efforts to kill it
from without through external persecution had been unsuccessful.
Damnable heresies are teachings outside the veracity of Scripture
that, if followed, lead to the second death, literal damnation.
Obviously, not all heresies are damnable. However, an early damnable heresy alleged that Christ was a
good man but not divine. This
heresy appeared again some years later as Arianism (319 A.D.).
The second damnable heresy added works to grace for salvation.
St. Paul and St. Peter both addressed these false doctrines, the
first attributed to non-believing Jews and the latter generally attributed
to Judaizers (e.g., see Acts 15:1), as recorded in numerous places in the
New Testament and discussed in Chapter Four.
The third damnable heresy, however, involved only a relatively
small number of churches. It
should be remembered that, prior to unification of a large number of
churches early in the 4th century by Constantine, later known
as the universal Church, most of the autonomous churches, with the
exception of those that held to the doctrines and teachings of the
Nicolaites, were independent, fundamentalist, bible-believing churches.
In some of these churches, the heresy of “baptismal
regeneration” began to take hold. Whereas
Scripture teaches that the spirit is reborn by saying “yes” to Jesus
(see Chapter Four), the damnable heresy of baptismal regeneration held
that the spirit was reborn by receiving water baptism.
Some mystical significance was attached to water as not only a
physical cleansing agent but also a spiritual cleansing agent.
However, there is not one word of support for such a view in
Scripture.
Integral to this heresy was another, namely, that of original sin.
This damnable heresy taught that man is born with an original sin
on his soul which can be washed away by baptism, rather than with a sin
problem caused by being born with a spirit that is dead to the things of
God. This misunderstanding
may have been a throwback to John the Baptist’s ceremonial baptisms in
the Jordan River or possibly to some pagan rituals. Both the Jews and pagans relied heavily on ceremonials and
rituals. However, John never preached that his baptism brought salvation.
Moreover, Jesus never taught or even suggested that baptism would
allow one to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
If baptism is the key to the kingdom, it is indeed strange that
when asked what one must do to be saved, Jesus never once told anyone to
be baptized! Nevertheless,
many denominations erroneously teach, even to this day, that the spirit is
reborn by water baptism. Moreover,
many teach that without baptism, one cannot be saved.
However, the Scriptures never record Jesus or any of His disciples
telling anyone he had to be baptized to enter the kingdom.
Jesus promised the believing robber on the cross that they would be
together in paradise that day. No
mention of baptism was made. Moreover,
as recorded in St. Mark 16:15-16, when Jesus commissioned His apostles He
told them:
“...
Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does
not believe shall be condemned.”
Jesus is clearly setting a binary requirement for salvation with
His words “believes” and “does not believe.”
The believer is saved. The
nonbeliever is lost. Baptism
is not the subject of these two verses.
Belief in Jesus is. And
the result is that those who believe in Him are saved.
Jesus tied the words “believes” and “baptized” together
because, as His followers, we are to follow His example in believer’s
baptism, the servant follows the lead of the master [see St. Matthew
3:13-17]. Moreover, baptism
is an act of obedience, commitment, and proclamation - not salvation.
Baptism is to take place as a result of salvation, not a cause of
it. As recorded by St. Paul
in Colossians 2:12:
“For
you were buried together with him in Baptism, and in him also rose again
through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead.”
Thus, baptism has everything to do with obedience and proclaiming
Jesus as Master and nothing
to do with salvation. Baptism
is symbolic of our burial with Him and our resurrection in Him.
A natural outgrowth to the heresy of baptismal regeneration was
infant baptism. Since baptism
had been declared to be the vehicle of salvation, it was obvious to
adherents that infants should be baptized.
Moreover, since immersion could be dangerous to infants, sprinkling
with water replaced immersion. The
majority of churches, however, continued to follow the practice
established in the early churches that only believers who confessed Jesus
with their mouths (to the congregation) were to be baptized and then only
by immersion since immersion was symbolic of Jesus’ burial and
resurrection and had nothing whatsoever to do with washing away sins or
regeneration of the spirit (see Chapter Four).
Thus, infant baptism was not an option in New Testament churches.
It is interesting to note that Orthodox Churches to this day
baptize infants by a form of immersion rather than sprinkling.
Another outgrowth of these damnable heresies was the logical
extrapolation that if baptism could wash away original sin, then baptism
could wash away, too, any other sins accumulated prior to baptism.
Such a belief is ritual and pagan.
History tells us this is why Constantine did not get baptized until
he was at death’s door. He
believed he could sin all he wanted, order the deaths of his son, wife,
nephew, uncle, co-Emperor, and other “enemies” and then have the water
of baptism “wash away” all those sins from his “blackened soul.”
It cannot and does not [see
Apocalypse 1:5]. Jesus taught
His followers to love their enemies, not dispose of them [St.
Matthew 5:44].
The heresies of original sin, spiritual regeneration through
baptism, infant baptism, sprinkling with water rather than immersion, and
the soul-washing power of baptism to remove all accumulated sins prior to
baptism, resulted in the first schism among the disparate, autonomous
churches. The year was 251
A.D., some sixty years before Constantine entered onto the world stage. 13
The New Testament churches followed the Scriptures with regard to
all aspects of baptism:
“On
hearing this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and when
Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them ....” [Acts
19:5-6]
Here the Scripture makes clear that baptism is not the agency by
which spiritual rebirth is accomplished.
Certainly St. Paul was used greatly by Jesus to bring salvation to
Jews and Gentiles alike. In addressing certain heresies concerning baptism
that had broken out in Corinth, St.
Paul reaffirms the non-necessity of baptism for salvation:
“For
Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel ....” [I
Corinthians 1:17]
Thus, St. Paul, who was instrumental in bringing new members into
the kingdom, reflects the truth of Scripture, namely, that entrance is
through the preaching and acceptance of the gospel, not baptism.
St. Paul taught the Ephesians, “For by grace you have been saved
through faith.” [Ephesians
2:8] St. Paul also preached
that, “Faith then depends on hearing, and hearing on the Word of God.” [Romans 10:17, NKJV] Thus,
St. Paul gloried in the fact that he was an instrument of God by which the
“good news” of salvation was being heard and accepted throughout the
known world.
Back
to top
The book of Acts describes a time of growth and transition for the
early churches. Many
instances of baptism are recorded. In
all instances, expressed belief in Jesus precedes baptism.
In most instances, the coming of the Holy Spirit precedes baptism.
St. Paul’s rebirth experience is typical.
He first recognized Jesus as Lord while on his journey to Damascus
when knocked to the ground. Trembling
and amazed, he asked, “Lord, what wilt thou have me do?”
Thus, he confessed Jesus as Lord with his mouth [Acts 9:6]. After first believing and confessing Jesus as Lord, the Holy
Spirit entered St. Paul and he was subsequently baptized:
“And
so Ananias departed (from his own house at the direction of the Lord)
and entered the house (of Judas of Damascus where Saul was staying),
and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me - Jesus, who appeared to
thee on thy journey - that thou mayest recover thy sight and be filled
with the Holy Spirit.’ And
straightway there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he
recovered his sight, and arose, and was baptized.” [Acts 9:17-18]
Crispus and his family’s experience was similar:
“But
Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord and so did
all his household, and many of the Corinthians heard Paul, and believed,
and were baptized.” [Acts 18:8]
Another clear example of the Holy Spirit being poured out prior to
baptism is found in Acts 10:44-48:
“While
Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came upon all who
were listening to his message. And
the faithful of the circumcision (believing Jews), who had come
with Peter, were amazed, because on the Gentiles also the grace of the
Holy Spirit had been poured forth; for they (the believing Jews)
heard them (the Gentiles) speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Then Peter answered, ‘Can anyone refuse the water to baptize
these, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?’
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Again,
the order was belief, sealing by the Holy Spirit, and then baptism.
In one instance, baptism preceded the falling of the Holy Spirit.
This instance is recorded in Acts 8:14-17:
“Now
when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria (region in northern
Israel whose inhabitants were hated by Jews, thus, the story of the Good
Samaritan) had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and
John. On their arrival they
prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for as yet he (Holy
Spirit) had not come upon any of them, but they had only been
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Then they (Peter and John) laid their hands on them and they
received the Holy Spirit.”
Thus, in Samaria, belief (had received the Word of God), as
always, came first; followed by baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus;
and, lastly, the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the believers.
This recorded instance makes it clear that water baptism does not
bring about spiritual rebirth, which is the falling of the Holy Spirit
upon the believer. It is
clear from the above citation. Those
in Samaria had believed and been baptized but had not yet received the
Holy Spirit. Thus, this
clearly shows that baptism does not bring about spiritual regeneration!
In the above instance, St. Luke records for us that the Holy Spirit
was poured out only after St. Peter and St. John arrived. However, the laying on of hands should not be interpreted as
some sort of ritual because in other verses there was no laying on of
hands when the Holy Spirit fell on believers [Acts 9:17-18; Acts 18:8; and
Acts 10:44-48]. Why did God
wait before sending the Holy Sprit upon the believing Samaritans? God knew that St. Peter would resist taking the gospel to the
Gentiles, as will be discussed later in this chapter.
To prepare St. Peter for the task, God first let him see the
Holy Spirit falling on the hated Samaritans.
The only verse in Scripture that could be misconstrued to imply
that water baptism brings salvation is found in I St. Peter 3:21.
However, as already cautioned against, biblical exegesis should
never be based (1) on only one verse or (2) taken out of context with
surrounding verses. Ecclesiastes
8:15 provides a good example why:
“...
there is nothing good for man under the sun except eating and drinking and
mirth (merriment): for
this is the accompaniment (his all) of his toil during the limited
days of his life which God gives him under the sun.”
Even those with little Scriptural familiarity understand that this
verse is not consistent with the message of the Scriptures and must
therefore be understood within the context of the surrounding verses or,
possibly, even within the context of the book in which it appears, or
possibly within the context of all Scripture.
The same is true for St. Peter’s words in 3:21 which state:
“Its counterpart, baptism, now saves you ...
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Either this verse contradicts all other verses on the
teaching of salvation and significance of baptism, including those of
Jesus and His disciples, or else St. Peter is saying something else
entirely. When one examines
the verse in context, it becomes clear that St. Peter is using a water
analogy to explain salvation. He
is also affirming that it is Jesus the Christ who saves through baptism in
His shed blood. Moreover, the
ark was a foreshadowing of the kingdom of heaven.
Those who entered in were saved.
Those who did not were lost, destroyed.
It is also important to note that just as Jesus is the only door
through which entry is made into the kingdom [see St. John 10:9], so God
instructed Noe to put only one door in the ark [see Genesis 3:16].
Again, believers are saved in the spirit by the cleansing blood of
Jesus.
To back up his claim that our salvation is through the resurrection
of Christ [I St. Peter 3:21], St. Peter goes on in verse 22 to show
Jesus’ position in relation to all powers, including death:
“
(Jesus) who is at the right hand of God, swallowing up death that
we might be made heirs of eternal life; for he went into heaven, Angels,
Powers and Virtues being made subject to him.”
Thus, St. Peter certainly is not teaching that water baptism saves
anyone! Rather, he is
affirming that Jesus has power over all and that is why we, as believers,
joint heirs with Christ, and adopted children of God, can be sure His
promise of eternal security is true!
Back
to top
The concept of “baptizo,” a Greek word meaning “submerge,”
“dip,” or “immerse,” was not invented by either John the Baptist
or Jesus. In Old Testament times, a person wishing to abandon idol
worship and convert to Judaism had to get circumcised and carry out a
number of Jewish ceremonies, including a covenant meal and a ritual bath.
The bath was an outward sign to all in attendance that the convert
was dying to the old life of idol worship and being resurrected as a child
of the covenant [Exodus 34:27]. Both
John and Jesus incorporated this ceremonial baptizo in their teachings.
In John’s teaching, baptism was symbolic of turning away from
one’s sins. In Jesus’
teaching, baptism was public affirmation that one was His follower.
Neither John the Baptist, Jesus, nor His apostles ever taught that
baptism played any role whatsoever in gaining entrance into the kingdom.
The New Testament churches understood that baptism by immersion
symbolized Jesus’ burial and bodily resurrection.
Their following Jesus in believer’s baptism affirmed, in a
symbolic way, their identification with Jesus’ burial (of the old man)
and resurrection (of the new man in Christ) [Romans 6:4-7 and II
Corinthians 5:17].
With these damnable heresies concerning baptism, Satan had sown the
first bad seeds which over time would grow into bad trees and produce the
bad fruit of a sacramental
salvation system, baptism being only the first of other sacraments to
come. Contrary to the soteriology taught by Jesus and His apostles
and “noted diligently in a book,” the Scriptures, “as a
testimony for ever,” the erring Churches and churches would evolve to
teach that salvation is a “process” toward which one aspires by
participating in the Church’s sacraments, with differing denominations
creating different sacraments that are themselves divided into different
categories which allegedly transmit grace (a different concept of
grace than taught in Scriptures) to the participants through ordinary
elements such as water, wine, bread, and oil.
Thus, God and His free offer of salvation through Jesus’ atoning
death on the cross were set aside and religious establishments - each
calling itself “The
Church” and run by sinful men - became the dispensers of salvation.
This concept was a false soteriology from its beginning wherein one
could be saved one day, lost the next, and saved again the following day
and so on. The New Testament
churches, however, even to this day, as they always have, reject these
heresies. That God would
preserve a remnant for His own is hardly surprising to students of the
bible. The Scriptures reveal
many times when, despite fierce persecution, God reached out to save a
remnant for His purposes [see IV Kings 19:31; Isaias 10:20-22; Jeremias
6:9; Joel 2:32; Romans 9:27 and 11:5; and Apocalypse 7:2-8].
God always preserves a remnant for His own.
“I am with you always ....” [St. Matthew 28:20]
Back
to top
|
It is ironic that only a few decades after the worldly power
of the Roman Empire was married to the spiritual power of a universal
“Christian” Church, New Testament churches that had never accepted
heresies concerning original sin, baptismal regeneration, and infant
baptism were labeled heretics by a heretical universal Church and
persecuted by that same Church for not conforming their New
Testament beliefs to the new world religion of the universal Church
and its head, the Emperor. This
is exactly what happened in
416 A.D. when the Roman Church, whose roots were established only one
hundred years earlier by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, made infant
baptism compulsory. 14 Soon after this legislative act, the
formerly autonomous, persecuted churches that now made up the universal
persecuting Church evolved only a relatively few years later, around 450
A.D., into the Roman Catholic Church.
Whereas Jesus said:
“If
the world hates you, know that it has hated me before you.
If you were of the world, the world would love what is
its own. But because you
are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore,
the world hates you. Remember
the word that I have spoken to you: No
servant is greater than his master. If
they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also ... But all these
things they will do to you for my name’s sake, because they do not
know him who sent me (God the Father).” [St. John 15:18-21]
Those who would not follow the Roman World’s dictum in the matter
of infant baptism were labeled heretics and put to the “Christian”
sword. During the persecution
of believers and Inquisition that began shortly thereafter and lasted for
more than twelve hundred years, the Roman Catholic Church legislated
additional required beliefs contrary to Scripture and, in the process,
created more martyrs for the testimony of Jesus than all the pagan Roman
Emperors combined! 15 Thus,
the Roman Catholic Church had accepted most of Constantine’s ideas, but
not freedom of religion.
Back
to top
Shortly before mandating infant baptism, Pope Innocent I (401-417)
pronounced that babies were obliged to receive communion also and if they
died baptized but “uncommunioned,” they would go to hell.
With this new pronouncement, the Church changed from its previous
position, that baptized babies who die go to heaven, and placed yet an
additional requirement for salvation on the faithful. Years after Innocent I’s mandate, Pope Gelasius I (492-496)
announced his agreement with Innocent’s position. However, both popes’ positions on the matter were condemned
at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
Prior to Trent, Pope Gregory I, also know as Gregory the Great
(590-604), modified Innocent’s and Gelasius’ position and again
changed the Church’s position. He
decreed that unbaptized babies who die go to hell and suffer there for all
eternity. He lifted the
requirement for them to receive communion to avoid damnation. 16
Some two hundred years after Trent, the Church changed its teaching yet
again when Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) decreed that those who die unbaptized
go to Limbo where they suffer the pain of loss (of the Beatific Vision,
that is, they do not see God) but not the pain of fire.
Limbo is mentioned briefly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
under baptism. It is
not listed in the index. However,
Pius VI’s position that unbaptized children go to Limbo appears to have
been replaced. According to
paragraph 1261 of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:
“As
regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only
entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for
them. Indeed, the great mercy
of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness
toward children which caused him to say:
‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them,’ allow us
to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died
without Baptism. All the more
urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to
Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”
During its history, the Roman Catholic Church has told grieving
parents who experienced the death of an unbaptized child that their little
one (1) is in hell (if uncommunioned); (2) is in Limbo; or, only in very
recent times, (3) may be in
the merciful hands of God. One
cannot begin to imagine the horror parents must have felt when told their
child was in hell or that they would not see their child in eternity
because their child was confined to Limbo.
Limbo is not discussed from the pulpit much anymore.
Many ask why the pope, who created purgatory with the stroke of a
pen and claims that many go there and who has created a way by which the
Church can get them out (indulgences, Masses, good works by the faithful,
etc.), cannot use that same power of the pen to ensure that children who
die unbaptized go to heaven. Some suggest the reason is because most of
the faithful ceased long ago to believe in purgatory and the Church
inventing some similar scheme to get babies out of Limbo might cause the
whole concept of purgatory to be revisited. The faithful simply would not stand for the notion of paying
for innocent babies to be released from Limbo the way they did and some
still do for freeing sinners from purgatory.
God’s Word tells us that babies who die go to be with God.
You may recall the story of King David and Bethsabee (also spelled
Bathsheba). While the king
routinely accompanied his army into battle, on this particular occasion,
King David sent his representatives but he, himself, remained behind in
Jerusalem. One evening David
was out walking along his lofty palace veranda.
He looked down and noticed a beautiful woman taking a bath on the
roof of her house, as was the custom on warm evenings.
David summoned her. Her
name was Bethsabee, the wife of one of his generals, Urias the Hethite.
The two entered into a clandestine relationship which was hidden
from the eyes of men until Bethsabee became pregnant.
Upon discovering her condition, David immediately recalled Urias
and his troops from battle. He
ordered Urias to go home to the comfort of his bed and wife, hoping the
general would think in coming months that he was the father.
However, as David soon learned, Urias did not go home.
When David asked him to explain his disobedience, Urias replied
that he felt if his men were denied the comfort of their beds and wives
that he, as their leader, should deny himself the same pleasures.
David sent Urias back to the battle with a sealed letter to his
commanding officer. It
directed that Urias be placed on the front line.
David’s scheme worked. Urias
was slain by the enemy and David took Bethsabee into his home as one of
his wives.
Bethsabee gave birth to their son.
However, the child soon became ill.
David fasted and prostrated himself before the Lord.
However, God took the child as a chastisement. Upon hearing of his son’s death, David ceased his grief,
rose up, and ate. When questioned about his conduct, David replied calmly:
“...
now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Shall I be able to bring him back any more?
I shall go to him rather:
but he shall not return to me.” [II Kings 12:23]
David could have recorded this in Scripture only if God
revealed it to him. Thus,
David had every reason to be certain of his and his dead child’s eternal
destinies. David’s
lamentation for his sin is recorded in Psalm 50 (51).
In verse 14 he states:
“Give
me back the joy of your salvation ....”
Notice that David does not ask God to restore his salvation.
David, despite his wicked sins of lust, adultery, and murder knew
he had not lost his salvation. Rather,
he asked God to cleanse his heart and restore to him his joy that
came from knowing his eternal destiny.
David paid dearly for his sins during his lifetime.
His children’s actions made his one of the most “dysfunctional
families” in history.
Back
to top
Churches that, when accepting a convert from another church where
that individual had been baptized as an infant insisted that the convert
follow Jesus in believer’s baptism, were referred to by their enemies in
polite society as Anabaptists, re-baptizers.
The Roman Catholic Church simply labeled them heretics.
They referred to themselves as New Testament churches and held
their testimony for Jesus more sacred than the comforts of belonging to a
state-sanctioned religion or even their own lives, as evidenced by their
martyrdom.
It should be understood that Anabaptists did not come about as a
result of the 16th century Protestant Reformation.
Certainly some affiliated Baptist church organizations came
out of the Reformation. However,
Anabaptists were there from the beginning, even before the notion of a
universal, Roman, or Roman Catholic Church, when all churches were
autonomous, independent, fundamentalist, bible-believing, New Testament
churches. Often the “ana”
was dropped and they were referred to simply as Baptist churches.
Cardinal Hosius, who became the President of the Council of Trent
said in 1524:
“Were
it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with
the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in
greater number than all the Reformers.” [Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera,
pages 112, 113] 17
Thus, the good Cardinal confirms that baptists date back to the
time of Constantine’s unification of many of the formerly independent
churches into a universal Church. Independent,
autonomous, fundamentalist, bible-believing Baptist churches are the only
ones never to have created a denominational organization (hierarchy) or
symbolized with Rome (not Constantine’s universal Church, not the Roman
Church, and not The Roman Catholic Church).
Not all Baptist churches are autonomous.
Many have entered into organizational structures such as the
Southern Baptist Leadership Conference.
Back
to top
Shortly after issuing his joint Edict of Toleration with Licinius,
Constantine invited representatives of all the disparate churches to
convene at a council in Nicaea. Many
responded in the affirmative. However,
a good number did not, believing, as Jesus taught, that church leadership
and state leadership should not be mixed.
Moreover, with the issuance of the Edict, many in the pagan world
saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall [see Daniel 5:5] and jumped
over to the new, state-sponsored religion headed by Constantine, the
Pontifex Maximus. These
included not only ordinary practitioners but also priests and hierarchal
leaders in the many pagan mystery religions (mystery refers to secret
rights and rituals) that prospered in Rome during the Christian
persecution and before. To
accelerate such “conversions,” Constantine ordered tax breaks given to
“Christian” prelates.
A hierarchy was formed among those who attended Constantine’s
first council. This led to a
Church structure that included real but erring Christians in some
positions of authority and unconverted pagan religious leaders in others.
Christ was dethroned as head of the formerly autonomous churches
and Emperor Constantine usurped the throne of a soon-to-be universal
Church that would act not only in an executive manner but also in a
legislative one, setting aside the teaching and laws of God and
substituting in their place the traditions of men.
Moreover, after supposedly becoming a Christian and assuming
leadership of the universal Church, what
would evolve into the Roman Catholic Church by the middle of the 5th
century, Constantine accepted the pagan title of his predecessors Julius
Caesar and Augustus, Pontifex
Maximus, the head of all state religions.
Under this title, he selected
young girls for service as Vestal Virgins who served at the public
shrine to Vesta, the goddess of the hearth.
Moreover, Constantine continued in pagan worship and practiced
pagan rituals used to bless crops, animals, and other things. 18
Additional elements of pagan ceremonies, rituals, and articles used
for worship of false deities began to be carried into the universal Church
by “converting” pagans.
Constantine finally was successful in uniting the eastern and
western halves of the Empire in 324 when he had his eastern Co-Emperor,
Licinius, killed.
Back
to top
As Emperor, Constantine, like all Roman Emperors before him, was
infallible. The universal
Church recognized that Constantine needed a Christian title as head of the
“Christian” Church to go with his pagan title of Pontifex Maximus.
Church hierarchy honored him with the title “Bishop of
Bishops.” Constantine,
however, claimed an even higher title: Vicarius
Christi, “Vicar of Christ.” It
means “in the place of Christ.” 19 Since the Greek word for
Vicar is Anti, the Emperor and anyone else who claims the title Vicar of
Christ is, by simple translation, an antichrist.
It means “in the place of Christ.”
It is not necessarily a pejorative term meaning “against
Christ,” but such is the context within which it is generally used.
Thus, for the first time in history, but certainly not the last,
the world had an unrepentant, multiple-murderer claiming to stand in the
place of Christ! There have
been many homicidal maniacs since who have claimed to be the Christ, or
vicars of Christ, as discussed in Chapter Two.
Prior to his death, Constantine also usurped St. Paul’s title by
referring to himself as “the 13th apostle.”
Back
to top
Successors to Constantine to this very day carry his claim
of infallibility and his titles of Pontifex Maximus and Vicar of
Christ, along with many of the ceremonials such as having their rings
kissed. The reigning Emperors
continued to exercise the office of Pontifex Maximus until 376 A.D. when
Emperor Gratian, for Christian reasons, refused it.
Gratian did much to remove paganism from its new home in
Constantine’s universal Church. However, by this time and with much of the universal Church
hierarchy and members consisting not of real Christians but pagan mystery
cult refugees, his accomplishments were limited.
Nevertheless, he did meet with some success. He ordered the shrine of the goddess Victory removed from the
Senate house and ended state-provided financial support for the pagan
cults. This action, of
course, resulted in the fulfillment of the law of unintended consequences
and drove prelates from cash-starved cults into the cash-rich universal
Church. Gratian tried
unsuccessfully to disassociate the Roman state from pagan religions.
20 When he refused the title of Pontifex Maximus, Damasus, the
Bishop of Rome, graciously accepted it, along with the Emperor’s other
titles of Bishop of Bishops and Vicar of Christ, along with his cloak of
infallibility. It should be
noted that St. Peter never held such titles.
Neither did he claim to be infallible.
This degree of hubris was reserved largely for the leaders of the
world, the Roman Emperors and the Pharos before them, along with the
Moslem Abbasid Caliphs after.
Constantine’s “conversion” and subsequent elevation of
Christianity to the preferred religion aggravated some members and ruling
prelates of the pagan religions. As
a matter of tradition, these pagan priests, magicians, soothsayers, and
astrologers had been valued advisors to the Emperors.
On the other hand, these same “lowly” Christians had been used
for sport in the arena. In
order to placate the upper crust who did not “flee” to Christianity,
Constantine created a placebo, a new name for the day on which the sun god
was worshiped - Sunday. By no coincidence, this was the same day on which the
Christians worshiped. Not
long after this accommodation by the Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops,
and Vicar of Christ, those churches who had joined Constantine in uniting
Church and pagan state began to refer to the first day of the week, their
day of worship, as Sunday. Many
in the universal Church felt it was a small compromise.
But it was a large step toward ecumenism, which they did not
recognize to be a damnable heresy. Whereas
Jesus, the servant with no place to lay His head,
had said “Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” and St. Paul had
taught, “And be not conformed to this world,” and St. John the
revelator (writer of the book of the
Apocalypse) had warned, “Go out from her (the world),” 21
all indicating a clear separation of Church and state, Constantine
combined the two and, over time, many so-called Christians began to be
conformed not to Christ but to the pagan world.
It started with a small compromise here and then a compromise there
and so on. Within a
relatively short time, the leaders of the universal Church would become
the rulers not only of the Catholic Church, but also of the entire world.
Kings and princes would bow before them literally and figuratively.
Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day in
the year 800. To this day,
all Christian denominations, even those who broke away from Rome after the
Reformation, indirectly and unknowingly pay homage to a false sun god by
referring to their day of worship as Sunday.
Constantine had put Mars on Empire coins in his pre-Christian
years. In later years, the
“Christian” Constantine chose not to honor Jesus on state coins, but
instead honored his greatest god, the alpha and omega of his true faith,
Sol. 22 Constantine’s
baptism on his death bed appears to be no act of following Jesus.
Rather, it appears that Constantine, to use the parlance of our
day, wanted to cover all bets, just in case this Jesus might have been the
god those who had gone gladly to their martyred deaths thought him to be.
Constantine no doubt believed that if the Christian god accepted
the riffraff of Roman society into his kingdom, he would be more than
exuberant to welcome an exalted Emperor such as himself.
Back
to top
One of several prominent pagan mystery religions over which the
Pontifex Maximus ruled was the Babylonian Mystery Cult.
This cult was the first apostasy recorded in the Old Testament.
It is discussed in Chapters 10 and 11 of Genesis.
It was the first post-diluvial world empire consisting of combined
religion and state. Its
founder was Nemrod (also spelled Nimrod).
King Nemrod (Nemrod means rebel), Noe’s great grandson (Noe, Ham,
Cush, Nemrod), was a mighty hunter before the LORD.
This is usually interpreted to mean a “hunter of men,” a tyrant
and a murderer. The first
potentate recorded in history built many cities, as well as the tower of
Babel, which was a foreshadowing of man’s rejection of God’s free gift
of salvation and an attempt, in his pride, to work his way to heaven, at
least symbolically, to “make a name” for himself [see Genesis 11:4]
rather than glorify God [see Ephesians 2:4-7].
Nemrod married Semiramis. Shortly
after his death, Semiramis found herself pregnant. The queen claimed that
Nemrod had ascended into the heavens to become the sun god and that he had
impregnated her with a sunbeam and thus the child, whom she named Tammuz,
was conceived miraculously. She
claimed that Tammuz (referred to in the Greek as Adonis 23)
was, in fact, the promised seed of the woman who would redeem all mankind
[see Genesis 3:15]. Sometimes
Satan’s imitations come frightfully close to the real thing [see
Apocalypse 6:2 and 19:11]. However,
God promises to protect His elect (believers) from such deceptions [St.
Matthew 24:24].
Centuries later the prophet Ezechiel lamented when he saw the women
of Jerusalem weeping in Solomon’s Temple for the god Tammuz [Ezechiel
8:14]. It was believed by the
Sumerians that Tammuz was betrayed by his lover, Ishtar, and, as a result,
died each year only to be resurrected in the spring.
His set days of mourning are forty, a period of time and season
that coincide with Lent in some denominations.
Some thirty years earlier, the prophet Jeremias had lamented when
he saw the people worshiping and making little wafer cake offerings to
Semiramis who was referred to as the “queen of heaven” 24
[Jeremias 7:18 and 44:17-19, 25]. Our
word Easter comes not from anything having to do with Jesus’
resurrection, but from Ishtar, the Assyrian goddess of love and fertility.
This is why eggs and rabbits are associated with Easter.
They are ancient symbols of fertility.
Jesus used no fertility symbols in His teaching.
Thus, another small compromise with the pagan religion was
introduced into the universal Church which served to make the day of
Jesus’ resurrection coincide with Ishtar’s day of celebration.
Moreover, Ishtar is the Assyrian name for the Babylonian goddess
Semiramis, also known as the Egyptian goddess Isis. 25 All hold
the title “Queen of Heaven.” Thus,
Ishtar was not only Tammuz’s lover, she was also his mother!
Note the parallel between the Catholic “Queen of heaven” and
“King of heaven.” Rather
than refer to Easter, we should refer to that day as Resurrection Sunday.
The Babylonian gods Semiramis and Tammuz were also worshiped as
Isis and Osiris by the Egyptians, as Ishtar and Bacchus by the Assyrians,
as Isi and Iswara by practitioners in India, as Cybele and Deoius by
Asians, as Aphrodite and Eros (or Adonis) by the Greeks, and as Venus and
Cupid by the Romans. At no
time in history have Semiramis and Tammuz, even though worshiped under
other names, been without followers.
And today is no exception.
Jehovah God condemned these acts of idolatry through the Old
Testament prophets. Nevertheless,
this mother-son religion, the Babylonian Mystery Cult, which employed
mother and son worship, was the first alternative to the worship of
Jehovah God recorded in Scripture. All
subsequent false religions grew out of this first.
Apocalypse Chapter 17 describes the false, one-world religion
(called the harlot) of the Tribulation period (end times), a period of
time yet future. Verse 5 reveals the name written upon her forehead:
“... Babylon the great, the mother of harlotries and of the
abominations of the earth.” In other words, it is this first apostate religion that
subsequently gave birth to all others.
The Babylonian Mystery Cult, started more than four thousand years
before the birth of Jesus, employed many practices that are used in
various denominations to this day. There
was a priestly hierarchy who ruled over the laity, a precursor to the
Nicolaites discussed earlier. The
priests had the power to hear and forgive (or not forgive) sins and
dictate fines (penance). Worship
services were ritualistic and included elaborate processions in which
wooden and stone images were elevated and venerated.
Incense was burned before the altar [see Isaias 1:13] over which
hung the Chaldean tau, “T,” which stood not for the cross of Jesus
(Jesus had not yet come) but for the god Tammuz!
Cultists crossed themselves with the “T” when they felt in
danger and wished to call upon the “spirit of Tammuz” to protect them.
By the time Jesus started His ministry, the Babylonian Cult had
introduced prayer beads [see St. Matthew 6:7], prayers for the dead [see
Isaias 8:19], and forced celibacy for certain levels of the priesthood as
with the Vestal Virgins [see I Timothy 4:1-3]. 26
The Cult continued to teach salvation by works just as it had
during the building of the tower.
After Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, overtook the Babylonians in
539 B.C., he drove out the Babylonian Cultists and their high priests. King Cyrus was also used by Jehovah God to carry out His good
pleasure toward His chosen people, the Jews.
He let the Jewish captives from the southern kingdom of Judah taken
away by Nabuchodonosor (also spelled Nebuchadnezzar) to Babylon, the
capital of the Babylonian Empire, return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city
and the Temple. Moreover,
Cyrus provided the building materials and technical assistance needed for
the restoration. He also had
the returning captives take back the sacred articles of gold and silver
removed from the Temple by the Babylonians in 587 B.C.
God refers to Cyrus as His “shepherd” and His “anointed,”
as recorded in Isaias 44:28 and 45:1, respectively.
Back
to top
With the rout of the Babylonian Cultists by Cyrus, Satan moved his
seat of power from Babylon to Pergamum (also spelled Pergamos). The Roman Catholic Bible confirms this in Apocalypse 2:12-13:
“And
to the angel (messenger) of the church at Pergamum write ... I know
where thou dwellest, where the throne of Satan is ... where Satan
dwells.”
The cultists also moved the seat of their religion and heathen
practices to Pergamum in Asia Minor, about fifteen miles from coast of the
Aegean Sea. While the
Babylonians worshiped a number of gods, first among them was the “fish
god” Marduk. The chief priests who officiated at the various ceremonies
and rituals in the many temples to Marduk were identified by their
particular headdress which bore the title “Keeper of the Bridge.”
To the uninitiated, the Bridge was assumed to be between Marduk and
man. However, to those
initiated in the mystery rituals, the Bridge was known to be between
Satan, the real founder of the cult and all other false religions, and
man. The headdress worn by
the chief priests resembled the mouth of a fish.
Some five hundred years later, the Roman Emperors would accept this
title with a slight modification. They
referred to themselves as the “Major Keeper of the Bridge.” In Latin the title is Pontifex Maximus.
Thus, the Emperors acted as heads of all pagan religions
since all pagan religions were bridges between Satan and man.
It is no small coincidence that we see the Nicolaites, a hierarchal
religious organization modeled after that of the Babylonian Cult and
ruling over the laity, mentioned in the letter to the church at Pergamum
and their acceptance by some at that church followed by God’s
condemnation [see Apocalypse 2:15-16].
Only a little more than three hundred years later, the popes would
ignore God’s condemnation of the actions of the Nicolaites, set up an
even more elaborate hierarchal system to rule over the laity, and take the
pagan title of Pontifex Maximus.
As mentioned above, the headdress of the chief priests of Marduk
resembled the mouth of a fish. Have
you seen such a headdress? Consider
a bishop’s miter. Picture
it rotated about the head by ninety degrees so that it is now horizontal
rather than vertical. Now
rotate it ninety degrees about its longest axis.
You now are looking at a headdress that resembles the mouth of a
fish!
When the Bishop of Rome, Damasus, accepted the title of Pontifex
Maximus and Head of the Babylonian Order in 376 A.D., Satan combined
apostate Christianity with the Babylonian Mystery Cult, both under the
direction of Bishop Damasus. Thus,
Satan again moved his seat of power, this time from Pergamum to Rome.
A relatively few years later, it was “Pope” Damasus I (366-384)
that suggested an inherited spiritual authority for the Bishop of Rome as
successor to St. Peter. It
was at that time that the Petrine text, “Thou art Peter,” began to be
used to provide a theological and scriptural foundation for claims of
primacy. 27 He dared not base his claim on its true, historical
source, the Roman Emperors, all of whom were infallible.
However, it didn’t really matter.
Damasus was unsuccessful in that the councils continued to hold
sway over the popes, thus limiting their power and wealth for many more
years. Romanism was still
evolving toward Catholicism.
Back
to top
It is argued by the Roman Catholic Church that St. Peter, as the
first pope, called the first ecumenical (world-wide) council at Jerusalem
and made the necessary determinations as leader of the Roman Catholic
Church. However, as has been
pointed out earlier, there was no Catholic Church at the time of St.
Peter. Neither was there a
Roman Church nor anyone who thought of himself as pope, the head over all
the churches. In fact, as of
that time there had not even been any thought of a universal Church and
therefore no need for a pope over all the separate, independent churches.
Later, bishops would be called pope or “papa” by the laity.
It simply meant “father.”
The meeting at Jerusalem did not involve the pastors or elders from
any other churches, or any ruling hierarchy.
There was none! Councils,
as referred to by the Roman Catholic Church, came about more than two
hundred years later, the first being called at Nicaea by the Roman Emperor
Constantine, the head of the universal Church, in 325 A.D.
The objective was to resolve bitter squabbles among various
factions within the quasi-Christian elements of the universal Church.
Of the 1800 bishops (pastors) in the Roman Empire, only 318
attended. The fifteen hundred
who failed to attend were refugees from paganism who had crossed over to
the new state-sponsored religion. These
had not a whit of interest in
the arguments on either side of the Arian dispute which maintained that
Christ was not divine. Constantine
viewed the council as only a minor success and realized that, without
broader participation, future councils would continue to consist of only
minority participation which could be injurious to Empire. In order to engage bishops with pagan backgrounds at future
councils, Constantine led the 318 quasi-Christian bishops in voting to
celebrate future Resurrection Sundays on the pagan goddess Ishtar’s day
of celebration. Thus,
Jesus’ resurrection was to be celebrated on the same day as the “queen
of heaven’s” celebration, the goddess of fertility depicted as a
mother with a baby at her breast.
With regard to the Jerusalem meeting, it is revealing to read the
words of the church elders and presbyters.
What is clear from an unbiased reading is that St. Peter simply
recounted his experiences in converting the Gentiles, along with St. Paul
and Barnabas. These arguments
by St. Peter, St. Paul, and Barnabas, in favor of not placing on converts
any greater burden than necessary, appear to be addressed to St. James. This is discussed more fully later in this chapter.
Back
to top
Damasus was later canonized. During
his pontificate, he promoted the cult of the martyrs. It was about this time that worship of saints, angels,
and martyrs began (more will be said on this later). Also at this time,
stone carvings of the goddess Semiramis and her godly son Tammuz, in what
formerly had been pagan temples, were confiscated from the heathen and
given to the Roman Church for “Christian” worship.
The statues were simply renamed Mary and Jesus.
Many of the carved images portrayed a woman holding a baby in her
arms over her heart. Not
unexpectedly, some of the former members of the Babylonian Cult easily
transferred their adoration from Tammuz and Semiramis to Jesus and Mary.
28 The pagan Greeks thought of Mary and Jesus as Aphrodite and
Eros, while the Romans thought of them as Venus and Cupid.
By 428 A.D., the Roman Church, just a few short years away from
evolving fully into the Roman Catholic Church, had decreed Mary to be not
only the mother of Jesus, which she certainly was, but also the Mother
of God and “honored” her further with the scripturally condemned
pagan title Queen of Heaven. 29 Thus, the Scriptural
notion of the “blessed” Virgin Mary whom true Christians venerated,
the woman chosen by God above all other women to be the mother of His
only-begotten Son, was transformed into a false deity who, like Semiramis
and all the other names she had been worshiped under, was now called the
Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and worshiped as such by the pagan
“faithful” within the Roman Church.
The date of Jesus’ birth had been changed earlier by Constantine,
probably from the Feast of Tabernacles [see Leviticus 23:39-43] in the
seventh month of the Hebrew calendar.
This feast was also referred to as Sukkot and, unlike other major
Jewish feasts, this Feast of Lights, as it was also called, included the
Gentiles. St. John records in
the gospel that bears his name: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us....” [St. John
1:14] The Greek word
translated “dwelt” is skenoo which means “tabernacled.”
Moreover, God’s Word tells us that Jesus is the Light of the
world [St. John 9:5]. How
fitting that the Light of the world would be born on the Feast of Lights.
Thus, Jesus’ birthday was changed from September to December 25th
which is the date of Tammuz’s birthday (also known as Dumuzi and by some
cults as the Sun god), another small compromise.
As has been shown, many of the dates and celebrations in various
sects of Christianity happen to coincide with the dates and celebrations
of pagan gods. Such include
Easter (Ishtar) and Christmas (Tammuz’s birthday).
For years, the Catholic Church defended this practice by stating
that Christians chose them during times of persecution to coincide with
pagan days of celebration so as not to be noticed.
In other words, Christians could celebrate Jesus’ birthday at the
same time pagans celebrated Tammuz birthday and not be noticed and,
therefore, persecuted. This
sounds very logical. However,
it is not true. These
practices and dates were developed not during times of persecution, but
during Emperor Constantine’s rule and even later.
All Saints Day, modeled after the Romans’ celebration of the
pagan god Saturn, was incorporated into the Catholicism by Pope Gregory IV
in 835. In order to avoid
further persecution by the universal Church, New Testament churches
accepted the changed dates for Easter and Christmas.
However, they refused to celebrate the eve of All Saints Day,
originally celebrated as the Roman Harvest Festival on November 1.
This day is now celebrated the evening before as Halloween.
The roots of Halloween date back to the 2nd century
practice of Druidism in Rome. Today,
Wiccans (witches), Satanists, Druids, and many Churches, including
Orthodoxy, celebrate this day.
It should be clear at this point that just a few hundred years
after Christ’s ascension, the Roman Church, whose roots had been
established by Emperor Constantine in a pagan universal Church, was
becoming more paganized than the pagans within her were becoming
Christianized. By the middle
of the fifth century, the Roman Church had more pagan members than
Christian. As more and more
pagan titles; ideas; ceremonials; and rituals, including purifications,
sacrificial offerings, and other “sacraments” were adopted by Church
leaders like Damasus, the theology and soteriology became more and more
corrupted. Practitioners of pagan faiths looked at their friends in the
state-favored Roman Church, whom they had known as fellow worshipers and
leaders of the Babylonian and other mystery cults, and saw that their
lives were the same as they had been prior to their so-called conversions.
These “Christians” were no longer referred to as the “third
race” or “the Way” [see Chapter Four].
Rather, they “were the world.”
St. Paul had directed the churches to expel those who lived like
the world, as discussed below. The Roman Church ignored his directive then as the Roman
Catholic and many other Churches do today.
St. Paul established a flourishing church at Corinth around 51 A.D.
Corinth was a connecting link between Rome, the capital of the known
world, and the East. The church was made up of those who formerly had been
blinded to the truth of God by the attractions of the world.
Many were trying to walk in the spirit, having put off the old man
and put on the new in Christ. However,
it was difficult for new believers and many were being lulled back into
the ways of the heathen.
People from all over the known world flocked to Corinth to
participate in its allures which included temple prostitution, organized
gambling, and other amusements, much like today’s Las Vegas.
However, after he left Corinth, St. Paul heard stories that some
converts were still behaving as heathens (Gentiles).
The story is recorded in Chapter 5 of I Corinthians.
While it appears textually as a single letter, it is actually a
series of letters, as can be concluded from the text:
“It
is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and such
immorality as is not found even among the Gentiles, that a man should have
his father’s wife. And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned so that he
who has done this deed (taking his father’s wife) might be put
away from your midst (expelled from the congregation). I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already,
as though present, passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ on
the one who has so acted - you and my spirit gathered together with the
power of our Lord Jesus - to deliver such a one over to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh (not destruction of the soul in hell) that
his spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Your boasting is unseemly. Do
you not know that a little leaven (sin) ferments the whole lump (the
entire congregation)? Purge
out the old leaven, that you may be a new dough, as you really are without
leaven. For Christ, our
passover, has been sacrificed. Therefore
let us keep festival, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of
malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth. I wrote to you in the letter (the first letter, he is now
beginning the second) not to associate with the immoral - not meaning,
of course, the immoral of this world, or the covetous, or the greedy, or
idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world.
But now I write to you not to associate with one who is called
brother (believer), if he is immoral, or covetous, or an idolater,
or evil-tongued, or a drunkard, or greedy; with such a one not even to
take food. For what have I to
do with judging those outside (nonbelievers)? Is it not those inside (your church) whom you judge?
For those outside God will judge.
‘Expel the wicked man from your midst.’”
[I Corinthians 5:1-13]
St. Paul’s direction is clear.
Those who behave wickedly should be expelled from the church else
the whole congregation might become corrupted in their flesh.
Those committing incest, those who commit other forms of sexual
immorality, those who are greedy, those who are drunkards and otherwise
walking in the flesh, are to be expelled and not take the Lord’s Supper
with believers who are walking in the spirit.
Failure to expel such a one could ruin the whole lump, the entire
congregation, St. Paul warns. If
he fails to reform, such that he can come back into the church, he is to
be turned over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.
This means expelled from the congregation.
This in no way implies that his salvation has been or, in the
future, might be lost. St.
Paul is quite clear about this. St.
Paul says turn him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that
his spirit may be saved.
Back
to top
As long as the believer is walking in submission to God’s will,
he is protected by the providential arm of God.
I was recently in an audience where I
heard a remarkable story relayed by a well-known Baptist preacher
from Dallas, Texas. It was
not the first time I’d heard of such a thing, only the most recent.
The preacher said there was this certain Christian girls college
where there had been two attacks on young women at night when they cut
across a certain part of the campus.
As a result, campus police warned the girls to stay away from that
area which was used as a shortcut between the administration building and
the girls’ dorms.
One night a young lady who worked in the administration building
forgot about the police warning until it was too late.
She found herself on that same shortcut. Since she was already so far along, she decided to say a
prayer and put her trust in Jesus.
Then she saw him. He
was sitting on a bench with his coat collar pulled up around his ears. She nodded and mumbled a barely audible “Good evening” as
she hurriedly passed by. The
stranger looked up and nodded but said nothing.
The girl returned safely to her dorm.
In her nightly prayers, she thanked God for His protection and then
slipped safely under the security of her covers.
The next morning the campus arose to bad news.
There had been another attack.
The police asked the girls if they had seen anyone the previous
night. The girl from the
administration building came forward.
The police told her they had several suspects and asked her to
participate in a lineup. The
girl identified the man who had been sitting on the bench.
The police confirmed to her that he was their prime suspect. She asked if she could speak to him. They told her she could later, after he was processed.
The following day she sat down opposite him on the other side of
the glass and hesitantly picked up the phone.
She asked him, “Did you see me on campus the other night?”
The man nodded. “Why didn’t you attack me?” she asked.
He rolled his eyes. “Are
you kidding?” he replied disdainfully.
“No,” the puzzled girl answered.
The man shook his head in disbelief as he crushed out his
cigarette. He leaned forward
and looked into her eyes. “Because
of that guy with you,” he finally responded.
The girl shook her head. “I
was alone,” she protested.
The man leaned back in his chair and shook his head. “All I know,” the assailant responded, “is that when
you passed by me, some huge fellow had his arm around you and that’s why
I didn’t attack.”
The Old Testament contains many stories where the LORD extended His protective arm to His children who were walking in
obedience. Young David
fighting Goliath [I Kings 17:37], Daniel in the lions den [Daniel 6:22],
the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace [Daniel 3:25, NKJV], and
Job [Job 1:12] are but a few of the better known examples.
Because of the LORD'S
protection, neither the Philistine giant, the kings of Babylon, nor Satan
could inflict death on God’s children.
In telling the church to expel the man from the fellowship of the
congregation (physical realm), St. Paul is trying to present to the man
living in sin a foreshadowing of what will happen to him in the spiritual
realm if he does not turn from his sin.
If the man walks in the world without the protection of God, his
flesh will come to its end, though his soul will be saved.
This is a concept not different from that of sinning unto death,
discussed later in this chapter.
In his second letter, St. Paul clarifies his earlier message.
Believers cannot separate themselves from the heathens of the
world. However, they are to
separate themselves from fellow believers who are living like the world.
Back
to top
With regard to the conduct of the "Christian" Roman
clergy, Peter De Rosa notes:
“Things
became still worse by the end of the fourth century.
The Church was then respectable, with rich endowments and plenty of
real estate. She did not want
a married priest bequeathing it to his wife and children.
Further, the ascetic ideal became more demanding at the very moment
when the wrong kind of candidates, greedy and ambitious, were taking up
the ministry as a career. Celibacy
without chastity became the norm.” 30
By contrast, God’s Word says a pastor (bishop or presbyter, all
were used interchangeably in the Scripture and mean overseer in the sense
of a shepherd):
“...
must be blameless, married but once (to only one woman), having
believing children who are not accused of impurity or disobedience. For
a bishop must be blameless as being the steward of God, not proud, or
ill-tempered, or a drinker, or a brawler, or greedy for base gain; but
hospitable, gentle, reserved, just, holy, continent; holding fast the
faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching (Christ’s
teaching), that he may be able both to exhort (persuade) in
sound doctrine and to confute (rebuke) opponents.” [Titus 1:6-9]
Here St. Paul is stating, among other things, that the pastor
should be a man who could be held up as an example to his flock, walking
apart from the world. Moreover,
St. Paul points out that the pastor must hold fast to the faithful Word of
God so that he can preach; lead by example; and, if necessary, rebuke
members of the flock to bring them back to the walk God has planned for
them.
St. Paul writes to a young Timothy and warns against placing new
converts in positions of authority within a church.
Specifically, St. Paul says to be considered for the position of
pastor, the candidate:
“...
must have a good reputation with those who are outside (non-Christians),
that he may not fall into disgrace and into a snare of the devil.” [I
Timothy 3:7]
Back
to top
Contrary to Scripture, the Roman Church was filling religious
offices with new converts who were greedy and ambitious, as noted above by
former priest and author Peter De Rosa.
Wanting to have the benefits of belonging to the Empire-favored
Church without having a price to pay, more and more pagans felt compelled
to join at both the member and clerical levels.
And the more pagan the Church became, the more doctrinal errors it
inculcated from the many pagan religious systems that flourished in the
Empire. While today we view gods such as Hercules, Mars, Jupiter,
Apollo, Diana, Artemis, Pluto, Bacchus, and others as only harmless and
fictitious mythology, the worship of dozens of false gods was the
theology of the Roman Empire before, during, and even after the time
of Jesus. Worship of all
these gods was thought to provide paths to the hereafter.
Great pagan temples no less in grandeur than those built later by
Christians existed in every city of the Empire.
St. Paul refers to such a temple in Corinth [see I Corinthians
8:10-13]. Upon observing all
the beautiful temples in Athens and the many altars and icons within, St.
Paul notes when he gets to the crowd routinely assembled at Mars Hill, the
center for debate of emerging ideas at that time, that there is even an
altar to the “unknown god.” St.
Paul compliments the Greeks on their religious fervor and then proceeds to
explain to them whom the unknown god is:
Jesus resurrected. Some
sneered but others believed [Acts 17-34].
Some of those ancient pagan temples are still standing, at least in
part. Many were converted to
“Christian” cathedrals beginning as early as the 4th
century. The pagan statues
inside were simply renamed with “Christian” names such as St. Peter,
St. Paul, St. Andrew, etc. At
that time, there was no formal Church ritual for bestowing sainthood.
The people simply esteemed such Christians without any sense of
ritual. The formal process of
declaring a deceased person a “saint,” canonization, was not
ritualized until 993. The
highly decorative, elevated altars and censers, in which incense was
offered by the priests and attendants to false gods, were incorporated
into the rituals of the Roman Church.
Another important component in many pagan religions was temple
prostitution. The rulers of
the temples used such prostitution to make money for the temples and
themselves. Members and
guests were always welcomed. It
is no wonder many of the Jews considered the actions of Gentiles to be
little more than those of “dogs”
in heat. In contrast to all the temples to false gods, St. Paul taught
that each Christian was a temple and that it was important to carefully
control what was brought into the temple and how the temple was used.
In this way, St. Paul taught that there were more Christian than
heathen temples and that Christian temples must be kept clean.
Jesus said to His disciples:
“You
are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it
be seasoned? It is then good
for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” [St.
Matthew 5:13, NKJV]
Salt does not lose its flavor over time.
In fact, it is very old when it is first mined.
Therefore, it does not go flat.
The only way salt can lose its distinctive flavor is if it is mixed
with other seasonings. The
only way the believer can lose his effect on the world is by mixing with
the world. And Jesus assures
us that anyone who mixes with the world, that is, fails to take up his
cross (crucify his fleshly desires), cannot be His disciple [St. Luke
14:27].
Back
to top
Worship of Mary began in 431 A.D. after the Council of Ephesus
deposed the Nestorians. Nestorius,
Bishop of Constantinople, and others took exception to their Church’s
according Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the pagan title “Mother of God.” Under the leadership of an opposing Bishop, Cyril of
Alexandria, the Nestorian “heresy” was taken up at the Council of
Ephesus (431), called by Theodosius II, Emperor of the East, and his
counterpart, Valentian III, Emperor of the West.
The Bishop of Alexandria prevailed and the Nestorians were labeled
heretics and most of their kind cut down with the sword.
Those who survived were driven from the Empire.
By the time the Roman Church evolved into the Roman Catholic
Church, around 450 A.D., members of the clergy and laity paid special
homage to the Mother of God and, as they do today, knelt in front
of her icon, previously known as Semiramis.
God’s command, “... you shall not carve idols for yourselves
... you shall not bow down before them ...” [Exodus 20:4-5] was
dispatched with an ease that comes only from not knowing His commandments.
Emperor Leo III (680-741), to his credit, tried to redress the
wrong in 726. He demanded
that all icons be removed from the churches and broken, thus the origin of
the word iconoclast. However,
the heavily paganized “faithful” sent up a hue and cry.
These “converts” did not view the icons as Mary and Jesus but
as Semiramis and Tammuz, Aphrodite and Eros, Venus and Cupid, etc., the
same gods they had worshiped in their pagan temples. Others worshiped them
as Isis and Horus, Ishtar and Bacchus, and by other names for false
goddesses and gods. Pope
Gregory II (715-731) weighed in on the issue in support of the pagans
within the thoroughly paganized Roman Catholic Church.
Gregory lied to the Emperor and claimed that the icons were only
reverenced, not worshiped. However,
the truth escaped, not from his lips, but from his pen, when he wrote to
Leo and explained that “... the statue of St. Peter” is esteemed
“... as a god on earth” and warned of the terrible consequences the
Church would pay if St. Peter and the other icons were removed. 31
Leo did not buy Gregory’s logic.
As a result, Gregory excommunicated Leo in 731.
When one thinks of all the great cultures that produced the
world’s greatest art, one nation is conspicuous by its absence.
That nation is Israel. The
reason is obvious. The
subjects for the production of art, sculpture and paintings, from the time
of the ancients to the Romans, were their gods.
However, Jehovah God told the Israelites not to make images or bow
down before those produced by other cultures.
While Catholics argue that they are not bowing down (kneeling,
etc.) to the statues, but to whom the statues represent, this is even
worse. Should one bow down
even before those whom the statues represent?
It is revealing to note that when St. Peter entered the home of
Cornelius, the Gentile dropped to St. Peter’s feet.
But St. Peter pulled the man up and explained to the centurion that
he, too, was just a man, not one to be worshiped [Acts 10:25-26].
Back
to top
When a practitioner of voodoo in Cuba, Haiti, Trinidad, Brazil, or
one of the other Caribbean islands converts to Catholicism, he places
icons of Mary and Jesus on the shelf with others which represent various
Ioa, the spirits of deceased African tribal gods.
This form of Catholicism is called eclectic Catholicism.
Eclectic, of course, means the opposite of catholic, that is, there
are many elements from varying sources employed, rather than a universal
element. Eclectic Catholicism
refers to the absorption of Catholic practices and rituals into existing
pagan religions of indigenous cultures.
These countries were overtaken by Spanish conquistadors in the 16th
century.
Roman Catholic missionaries accompanying the Spanish conquerors
force-converted surviving denizens under threat of death.
Soon after, slaves were brought in from various African countries
to work the plantation fields and mines.
These captives brought their voodoo religion with them.
The Catholic missionaries tried to convince the Africans to
convert. However, the
Africans refused and the missionaries were not allowed to kill the slaves
for economic reasons. In
order to force them into the Catholic Church, the missionaries agreed to
certain compromises whereby elements of Catholicism were incorporated into
the practice of their voodoo rituals.
These included the use of icons, candles, bells, crucifixes,
prayers for the dead, and making the sign of the cross.
To this day, the practice of voodoo-Catholicism is not condemned
from the pulpit or the Vatican!
SanteËia, an African-based religion similar to voodoo, is a
rapidly growing influence in predominantly Catholic Latin American
countries, particularly Cuba. It
is a combination of theologies represented by the combination of the
Spanish word Santos, meaning saints, and an African word, orishas,
meaning spirits. Thus, SanteËia
means “Way of the Saints.” Icons
are used to represent the saints or spirits.
In practice, an adherent develops a special relationship with a
particular orisha. The
similarity to Catholicism’s confirmation name, where the one being
confirmed takes the name of a saint, is obvious.
During the ritual, the orisha supposedly enters and takes control
of the practitioner’s body. Of course, the force that takes possession is not that of any
saint, but that of a demon!
Back
to top
|
|
In the 6th century, the clergy began dressing
differently from the laity. Convents
were established for women and the female monastic movement adopted
certain ideals from Hindu and Buddhists’ convents established long
before the birth of Jesus. A
new sacrament, Extreme Unction, was created.
It is now referred to as Anointing of the Sick.
It is one of the sacraments categorized as a Sacrament of the
Living because, according to the Church, one must be “spiritually
alive,” already in the state of grace and free from “mortal sin,” in
order to receive it. Of
course, this presents a significant soteriological problem for the
believer. Neither Jesus’
preaching nor the Scriptures allow for the “death” of a reborn spirit.
Jesus did not say that to enter the kingdom of heaven one must be
in a state of “born-again-ness” or grace.
Moreover, the Scriptures do not categorize sins into varying levels
of offenses such as “mortal” and “venial”
[see I St. John 1:9]. When
Ananias and Sapphira lied to St. Peter and, as St. Peter pointed out, to
the Holy Spirit, about the amount of money they received from the sale of
their land, the result was not that they were convicted of a mortal sin.
Their punishment was that they were struck dead [see Acts 5:1-11].
This is a Scriptural concept referred to as “sinning unto
death.” There is no
indication in the Scriptures that they lost their salvation and neither is
there the expectation of same based on Jesus’ words regarding eternal
security. However, God will
only allow His unrepentant child to continue in sin without chastisement
for so long [see Hebrews 12:6]. If
the chastening fails to correct his behavior, God, in His mercy, will take
His child from this earth to be with Him.
Thus, it is difficult to understand how one can at one moment be a
child of God and at the next moment be a lost sinner again which is what
death of a reborn spirit would result in [see St. John 1:12].
Back
to top
Toward the end of the 6th century, the concept of
purgatory was introduced by Pope Gregory I, the Great (590-604).
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that purgatory is a place between
heaven and hell where those not good enough to get into heaven but not bad
enough to deserve hell spend time suffering for their sins in the
purifying fire until they can be cleansed and subsequently released to
heaven. It is based on the
heretical notion and departure from Scripture that Christ’s death on the
cross did not pay the full debt for sin [see Chapter Four].
The concept is without Scriptural or apostolic support [see St.
John 19:30]. In fact, St.
John assures believers that the blood of Jesus “cleanses us from all
sin.” [I St. John 1:7]
The economic utility of purgatory was not fully realized until the
reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484).
After purgatory was incorporated as a doctrinal tenant at the
Council of Florence (1438-1443), its true efficacy became apparent to
Sixtus. With the sale of
indulgences having been established some time earlier, around 1190, Sixtus
reckoned that such indulgences could be applied not only to the living but
also to the dead - to release them from purgatory.
And what good son and loving family member would not be willing to
spend a sizeable portion of his or her income to get a dearly departed
mother and father, sister and brother, or wife out of such a horrid place?
Moreover, the teaching was and still is that while souls in
purgatory cannot pray for themselves, they can pray for those yet living.
Therefore, what soul prayed out of his suffering in purgatory
into heaven would dare forget to pray daily for the one or ones who
affected his escape from that dreadful place of purgation?
Another troublesome aspect of this doctrine is that while the
priests could tell the bereaved how much an indulgence, such as a mass,
would cost and by how many days their loved one’s suffering in purgatory
would be reduced, they could not say how long a sentence in purgatory
lasted. Therefore, the
faithful never knew when a loved one was released or, fortuitously for
Church coffers, when to stop purchasing indulgences.
An even more heinous aspect of this teaching was that there were
different levels of purgatory with different levels of suffering. The theory was that one started at the bottom level where
suffering was least. To get
out of purgatory, one had to move up through successive levels and, with
each increasing level, the suffering intensified. 32 This ensured that those who initiated efforts to get their
loved ones out of purgatory could hardly stop after some period of time
because that would leave the loved one suffering more than before.
Another part of the teaching was that the lower levels of purgatory
were populated largely by souls from the lower socioeconomic classes.
This made sense since it logically would take longer for poor
families with relatively limited resources to buy their deceased relatives
out of the lower levels. Thus,
more aristocratic families were inclined to pay more money more quickly so
that their more affluent departed family members would not have to spend
any more time than necessary with the riffraff.
The proverbial well-off were thought to move up the purgatorial
ladder more rapidly than the poor. But
still, neither the priests nor the Church could say who would be released
sooner, the rich or the poor, since purgatorial sentences were assumed to
vary among individuals.
It is interesting to note that the Orthodox Churches do not
subscribe to either the doctrine of purgatory or indulgences.
Some of the theological problems associated with the doctrine of
purgatory are discussed below.
In addition to using purgatory as a revenue generator, Sixtus is
know also for being the first enterprising pope to license the brothels of
Rome. The most infamous of
all Roman Emperors, and one of Sixtus’ predecessors, Caligula (37-41
A.D.), best remembered for his acts of extreme debauchery, had taxed
Rome’s temples of prostitution fourteen hundred years earlier in the
same manner to raise revenues for the state.
Sixtus was doing so to raise revenues for what remained of the
Emperor’s state, the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact that the First Lateran Council (1123 A.D.) had adopted
cannons forbidding marriage of the clergy, but not requiring chastity,
allowed Sixtus to also impose steep taxes on priests who kept mistresses.
Another source of his income was arranging visits “... for rich
men to enable them to solace certain matrons in the absence of their
husbands.” 33
There are some who defend these and other egregious practices by
perverting the meaning of the verse:
“For
my (God) thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways,
saith the Lord.” [Isaias 55:8]
The intention with this line of defense is to mislead people into
believing that Church leaders conducting themselves in such an immoral way
were doing so under the leading of the Holy Spirit and it is therefore
impossible for the human mind to comprehend the Spirit’s intent since
His thoughts and ways are different from
man’s. This argument
is blasphemous! If this
defense is viewed within the context of the complete quote from Isaias, it
becomes clear that it is no defense at all:
“For
my (God) thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways,
saith the Lord. For as the
heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above
your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.” [Isaias 55:8-9]
Unless God believes having the pope play the role of pimp is
somehow higher than man’s ways, when His own Word forbids sex outside a
valid marriage, the above defense is made of hole cloth and is ridiculous
on its face!
It is somewhat interesting to note that the councils of Ephesus and
Constantinople, like all councils up till the twelfth century, were called
by civil authorities, the Emperors, rather than by popes or the Church.
The first council called by a pope was the First Lateran called by
Callistus II in 1123. Among
other things, this council annulled the ordinances of antipope Gregory
VIII. It is also worth
mentioning that, up to the First Lateran Council, it was the councils that
decided major Church matters, not a succession of popes!
Back
to top
Additional theological changes were introduced in succeeding years.
The Church placed the bible on its Index Librorum Prohibitorum
or Index of Forbidden Books in 1229.
Strangely enough, Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which paved
the way for widespread anti-Semitism in Europe, never was!
Already the seeds of discontent were growing within, calling for a
reform of Church teachings. While
few literates had bibles or access to them, those who did noticed
differences between what was taught from the pulpit and what was taught in
Scripture. As long as the
faithful didn’t have access to a bible, the Church could teach anything
that was to its benefit, even if directly counter to Scripture.
In fact, most of the things being taught by the 13th
century were contrary to Scripture. These
included prayers to and for the dead.
Family members in purgatory could pray for the living, but not for
themselves. Release from
purgation came largely through an increase in Church coffers.
The faithful were worshiping (bowing down) before carved images
taken from pagan temples and inserted into Catholic churches or, in some
instances, simply left in pagan temples that were converted to cathedrals.
Salvation had been declared to be a life-long “process” which
could be accomplished only through a sacramental system administered by
the Roman Catholic Church. The
Church increased the number of sacraments necessary for salvation.
This must have caused some to wonder what happened to those
faithful who died when there were fewer sacraments.
“Were there enough available at the time of their death to get
them to heaven? What if I die
and the Church creates another sacrament next year?
What is my eternal destiny without all the sacraments?”
But if salvation is a process, what are we to do with:
“...
Behold ... now is the day
of (your) salvation!” [II Corinthians 6:2]
As this and many other verses in Scripture make clear, salvation is
instantaneous. It is not a
process.
Prayer beads, holy water, and incense were sold by parishes and
used widely in worship services. Indulgences
were purchased by the faithful in advance so that planned sins could be
committed subsequently without guilt or consequence.
If one intended to commit adultery with a neighbor or even incest
with a daughter or sister, he could simply dispatch the associated guilt
with as little effort as might be expended in purchasing a chicken in the
marketplace. Each church
published a list of sins, along with the costs of their associated
indulgences. Absolution and, therefore, salvation came with a price.
The more the faithful sinned, the wealthier the Roman Catholic
Church became. Nothing was
sacred. Even Church offices
were for sale to the highest bidder, with the popes getting most or all of
the proceeds.
Back
to top
While the Mass had been instituted by the Roman Church around 394,
and attendees participated in fellowship and in the breaking of bread,
just as had the early church members at Jerusalem [see Acts 2:42], the
doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated some eight hundred years
later by the Roman Catholic Church and affirmed at the Fourth Lateran
Council (1215). 34 Thus, from its establishment in 450 A.D.
till 1215, the Roman Catholic Church did not teach that the bread and wine
were transformed into Jesus’ body and blood!
In response to the Reformers’ position against transubstantiation
two hundred years later, the doctrine was reconfirmed in 1551 at the
Council of Trent.
The first part of what history records as the “Great Schism”
was the split in the Catholic Church that broke into the Western Roman
Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and their mutual excommunications,
discussed previously. Catholic
apologists argue that the schism was over papal infallibility.
However, this is not true as will be shown later in this chapter
since the doctrine of papal infallibility was not introduced until 1870 at
the First Vatican Council, more than 800 years after the schism.
Moreover, as already discussed, the Old Catholics broke from Rome
in 1871 when it was required to believe that the pope was infallible.
Prior to the First Vatican Council the Church did not teach papal
infallibility. Thus, the
schism was not over so-called papal infallibility.
Rather, the break was initiated by a difference in the One from
whom the Holy Spirit would proceed. This
was the battle over the Latin word Filioque which means “and the
Son.” The Westerners held
that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son while the
Easterners held that the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father.
This argument, along with Constantinople’s belief that Rome was
cheating them out of their rightful share of the Church’s wealth, led to
the first part of the Great Schism. These mutual anathemas, pronounced in 1054, were rescinded
some nine hundred years later in 1965.
The second part of the Great Schism occurred several centuries
following the mutual excommunications and lasted more than thirty years.
Urban VI was elected pope in 1378.
The peasants had rioted in the streets to get a Roman or at least
an Italian pope. Urban
disliked the pretentious French Cardinals and lectured the prelates on the
virtues of poverty in his lavishly appointed Vatican quarters.
He excommunicated former friends and foes alike.
However, his behavior became so erratic that many thought him to
have gone mad. Therefore, the
Cardinals withdrew their support and selected a new pope, Clement VII.
In retaliation, Urban formed a college of Cardinals of his own and
promptly excommunicated Clement and his followers.
Clement moved to Avignon and won support from the French King who
was immediately excommunicated by Urban.
Representatives from both sides met in Pisa in 1409.
Their efforts resulted not in reconciliation but in the naming of a
third contemporaneous pope. The
Council of Constance (1414-1480) finally settled the matter by deposing
both Urban and Clement and installing Pope Martin V (1417-1431) with
universal recognition, except by Urban and Clement and their respective
supporters. The chaos surrounding the schism intensified calls for
reform. 35, 36 While a number of reforms were proposed at the Council of
Constance, there was not enough agreement on any to promote a real
discussion, much less arrive at a consensus.
God’s Word assures us that, “... God is not the author of
confusion but of peace ....” [I Corinthians 14:33, NKJV]
Back
to top
As early as the middle of the 14th century, an
Englishman, John Wycliffe (1330-1384), an Oxford professor and priest,
attacked the Church for its abuses in the areas of selling indulgences;
excessive veneration of the saints; and the moral corruption of Church
prelates, many of whom carried on open relationships with consorts and
frequently took prostitutes to their celibate but certainly not chaste beds.
He also denied the authority of the religious hierarchy.
Wycliffe translated the bible from Latin into English and, much to
the delight of his parishioners, preached sermons in English.
Another early reformer, Jan Hus (1372-1415), maintained ideas
similar to those of Wycliffe. Hus,
a Bohemian, was executed by the Church as a heretic in 1415.
This led directly to the Hussite Wars which were eventually
suppressed by a joint effort between the Holy Roman Empire and the pope.
The Dutch scholar, Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), reasoned that
dogma must be understandable to ordinary people because God certainly
would not hold someone responsible for not believing what he could not
understand. He argued, too,
against the doctrine of transubstantiation, calling it sophistry, and
maintained that Christ is present in the Eucharist only in a spiritual
sense, not in any substantial (substance) sense. 37 These are
only a very few of the very many early reformers.
It should be noted that they all came from within the Roman
Catholic Church, not from outside. Not
only did the Church hierarchy fail to listen, they escalated the abuses.
Back
to top
One of the most egregious examples of abuse came during the term of
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), one of the infamous de’ Medici popes.
Albert of the House of Hohenzollern, although not yet of age to be
a bishop, was bishop of Magdeburg and Haloberstadt.
He aspired to be made archbishop of Mainz and primate of Germany.
With these two titles, he knew the House of Hohenzollern would have
power over its political rival, the House of Hapsburg.
The normal fee to a pope for installation to the see of Mainz was
enormous. Due to special
circumstances, the fee would be even higher than normal.
Albert borrowed the required sum from the banking house of Fugger
in Augsburg and paid Leo in full. To
enable Albert to repay the loan, Leo permitted a special indulgence to be
purchased throughout Albert’s territories for eight years, with half the
proceeds going to the Fuggers and the other half to himself for his
building projects and other purposes.
To create the flow of revenues necessary to repay the Fuggers,
Albert, with the full knowledge and blessing of Leo, exaggerated the
efficacy of the new indulgence. Albert
pitched to eager listeners that his indulgence would remit not only the
penalties for sins but also the sins themselves and would give
preferential treatment to one who sinned in the future.
To help hawk his spiritual wares, Albert enlisted the help
of Dominican Father Johann Tetzel. Tetzel
added that this costly but special indulgence had the unique power to
ensure immediate release from purgatory.
He promoted this “new and improved” indulgence with the
charming jingle:
“As soon as the coin in the coffer rings,
The soul from purgatory springs.”
38
Back
to top
A confounding problem for the Catholic Church was the increase in
the number of bibles available to the faithful due to the invention of
Gutenberg’s printing press. A
significant number of bibles in Latin had been printed and distributed
among the literate between 1450 and 1456.
It was now obvious to more than the educated reformers, most of
whom were also teachers and priests, that the Roman Catholic Church had
drifted far away in its teachings, traditions, practices, and ceremonies
from the teachings and traditions documented by the apostles in the
Scriptures. This is why each
reformer who left the Roman Catholic Church took with him an already large
following, so large in fact, that the Church dared not and could not kill
all the “heretics.”
Back
to top
On the eve of All Saints Day, October 31, 1517, former monk and
Friar, Martin Luther, nailed
his ninety-five theses against the sale of indulgences to the door of the
church in Wittenberg, a city in east central Germany on the Elbe River.
Among other things, Luther claimed that the pope had no power over
an imaginary purgatory and, if he did, he should certainly open the doors
for free and release all held within.
Finally, he stressed that the real treasure of the Church, which
the popes overlooked continuously, was the gospel, not the enormous
content of their growing treasuries.
Over time, Luther went on to preach what he had been learning all
those years when he served as head of the theology department at the
University of Wittenberg. Whereas
the Roman Catholic Church was selling salvation, Luther began to
comprehend his Lord’s command:
“And
when you go, preach the message, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand!’
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils.
Freely you have received, freely give.”
[St. Matthew 10:7-8]
Luther also came to understand that man cannot merit salvation
through his own efforts; and, finally, that all authority rests in
Scripture, not the hands of men or any Church.
This principle is called Sola Scriptura, “by Scripture
alone.” This theological principle eliminates looking outside the
Scripture to the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any other post-Scriptural
or ex-Scriptural traditions:
“Jesus
therefore said to the Jews who had come to believe in him, ‘If you abide
in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’” [St. John 8:31-32]
It should be noted that Luther’s protests addressed only a
relatively few of what he and many other reformers considered to be
Rome’s many significant errors leading to damnation, namely, the
scandalous sale of indulgences and salvation. Somewhere along life’s journey, Luther’s spirit had been
reborn from above [see Chapter Four].
As a gift from the Holy Spirit of God, Luther finally had eyes to
see as he read the Scriptures. The
blinders had been removed [see II Corinthians 4:3-4]:
“Now
a man named Simon had previously been practicing sorcery in that city (in Samaria)
and astounding the people ... claiming to be someone great ... and had
bewitched them with his sorceries ... but (Simon) believed Philip
as he preached the kingdom of God ... and after his (Simon’s)
baptism ... saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of
the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, ‘Give me also this
power, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy
Spirit.’ But Peter said to
him, ‘Thy money go to destruction (hell) with thee, because thou
hast thought that the gift of God (salvation) could be purchased
with money. Thou hast no part
or lot in this matter (salvation); for thy heart is not right
before God.’” [Acts 8:9-21]
Salvation is not for sale by anyone or to anyone.
Another lesson from these verses is that baptism does not
regenerate the spirit because, according to the Scripture cited above,
Simon clearly was baptized. However, St. Peter tells us that Simon’s heart was not
right with God and that he was on his way to destruction (hell). St. Peter also reminds us:
“You
know that you were redeemed from the vain manner of life handed down from
your fathers, not with perishable things, with silver or gold, but with
the precious blood of Christ ....” [I St. Peter 1:18-19]
Back
to top
St. Paul warned his friends from Ephesus when he called them to
meet with him in Miletus:
“I
know that after my departure fierce wolves will get in among you, and will
not spare the flock. And from
among your own selves men will rise speaking perverse things, to
draw away the disciples (followers of Jesus, believers) after
them.” [Acts 20:29-30]
Note where these fierce wolves come from - from a community that
calls itself Christian! Of course, these are not believers, but men who walk among
believers claiming to be believers, as the verses make clear.
St. Peter gives us the reason why men calling themselves Christian
would come in among the flock and preach perverse things:
“...
there will be lying teachers who will bring in destructive sects (future
tense). They even disown
the Lord who bought them ... And many (of the flock) will follow
their wanton conduct (promiscuous lifestyles), and because of them
(lying teachers) the way of truth (the gospel) will be
maligned (Christianity will be viewed with contempt).
And out of greed they will with deceitful words use you for gain.
Their condemnation, passed of old (their condemnation, like
others’ salvation, was determined before the foundation of the world),
is not made void (their condemnation cannot be reversed), and their
destruction does not slumber.” [II St. Peter 2:1-3]
This, of course, is an accurate description of the universal Church
initiated by Constantine in the early 4th century and, later,
the Roman Catholic Church! Martin
Luther must have been horrified when his eyes were opened and he finally
saw what he, as a former monk and priest, had been a part of.
Luther did not address the infamous sexual appetites and instances
of incest and homosexuality in the Vatican among the popes and the Curia.
Neither did he address other abuses such as the sale of Church
offices to undeserving and profligate members of wealthy families.
There were numerous examples.
Giovanni de’ Medici was made abbot at age 7; cannon of every
cathedral in Tuscany at age 8; head of the Monte Cassino Abbey at age 11;
Cardinal at age 13; and, finally, Pope Leo X at age 38.
He is said to have lamented that he was beaten to the title of
youngest pope. Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044) held that title.
He became pope at age 11, thus beating out Pope John XII (955-963)
who ascended to the office at the age of 16.
History records John’s papacy as one filled with unprecedented
levels of debauchery, including sleeping with his mother, two of his
sisters, and a niece. John’s
end came at age 24 when a jealous husband returned home one night to find
his “Holiness” in bed with his wife. 39
Back
to top
Originally, Luther had no intention of leaving the Roman Catholic
Church. He only wanted his
Church fixed. Like many
other reformers before him and after, he simply wanted reforms made within
the Church, especially those that were so blatantly counter to Scripture.
However, Pope Leo X branded Luther a heretic and excommunicated him
in 1521, thus creating the schism for which Luther generally and
incorrectly is blamed by the Catholic Church. 40 Unlike many of
his fellow “heretics,” Luther died a natural death.
However, the spirit of reformation spread throughout the known
world. The Church took little
note of its falloff in membership. However,
the associated decrease in revenues forced it at last to address the
spreading reformation in an attempt to replenish retreating Church
coffers. Pope Paul III (1534-1549), himself a vocal supporter of
reform prior to his election, and a man who had been complimented
earlier with the moniker “the Petticoat Cardinal” due to the
irresistible charms of his sister, Giulia, called a council to deal with
the hemorrhaging, the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
However, Pope Paul was no reformer.
Rather, he directed council members to hold the line at all costs.
Numerous prelates came forth from within Holy Mother Church and
pleaded their cases. They
quoted the Scriptures to support their positions.
The bishops listened attentively.
What was made clear by the petitioners was that the Roman Catholic
Church in its teachings, practices, ceremonials, and rituals, all based on
“the traditions of men,” had moved far from the teachings and
traditions contained in Scripture, God’s Holy Word.
Many advocated a return to Scripture alone, just as had Luther and
earlier reformers.
Back
to top
The choice to Council members was clear:
(1) admit that the Roman Catholic Church had gotten off track from
its beginning and make the necessary reforms to move it back to God’s
Word and answer questions from mobs of irate faithful on how many of their
relatives and friends had been sent to hell during the previous eleven
hundred years for following false Church doctrines, or (2) reject the
reformers’ and council petitioners’ positions that Scripture alone is
the sole source of authority for the Church.
The bishops realized that with the first choice would come an end
to their regal positions and accumulated riches and, possibly, even worse
- their lives. Not wanting to
give up their envious and lauded standings, not to mention their wealth,
the bishops voted in 1545 to “place tradition on the same level of
authority as Scripture,” at least more or less.
This is the way it is recorded in most history books.
In actuality, it was more rather than less. Greater significance
was placed on tradition and less on Scripture.
In fact, what was actually done was to place the Scriptures
subordinate to Catholic tradition in that the council stated that the
Scriptures could be understood only within the context of the traditions
of the Roman Catholic Church. 41
Of course, there is absolutely no Scriptural support for such a
position and it is ludicrous on its face.
The psalmist speaks to the contrary:
“A
lamp to my feet is your word, a light to my path.”[Psalms 118
(119):105]
The Council’s ruling meant that Scripture had no meaning for the
Orthodox, Anglican, or Protestant Churches!
It also meant that the Old Testament had no meaning to the Jews
except as understood within the context of Roman Catholic tradition which
had persecuted them nearly to extinction in many parts of Europe! According to the pronouncement of the council, when Jesus
said of His sheep who follow Him, “And I give them everlasting life; and
they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of my
hand” [St. John 10:28], it meant nothing outside the “tradition” of
the Roman Catholic Church which taught that, not only did they not have
everlasting life, they could be snatched rather facilely as well as
frequently! This is indeed difficult to understand, particularly since
Jesus spoke these words long before the establishment of the Roman
Catholic Church by Constantine’s successors and the creation of
“Catholic tradition.” It
is extremely difficult to understand what traditions of the Catholic
Church, most of which are counter to Scripture, as evidenced by the
reformers and the Trent petitioners, that were developed over a period of
more than fourteen hundred years after the last book of the
bible was written [Apocalypse by St. John around 95 A.D.] one
could possibly use to interpret Scriptures that were written and widely
distributed well before the development of the subject traditions!
Moreover, as discussed earlier in this chapter, all teachings and
traditions to be followed by the churches were discussed and described in
the books of the New Testament. Thus,
not only did the Catholic Church not reform, it continued down the
legislative path that had taken God’s Word out of its teachings and
practices years before and replaced them with the traditions of men, thus
stealing from the Christ of the New Testament His power and authority and
making Him a liar!
Back
to top
While the Catholic Church claims it is the same today as it was
yesterday and will be the same tomorrow, this is hardly the truth, as has
already been seen in earlier chapters.
Traditions practiced by the Roman Catholic Church at the time Trent
began included: 42
·
Prayers for the dead (300)
·
Making the sign of the cross
(300)
·
Worship of saints and angels
(375)
·
Mass as daily ritual (394)
·
Worship of Mary (431)
·
Introduction of purgatory
(593)
·
Prayers directed to Mary
(600)
·
Worship of images and relics
(786)
·
Use of holy water (850)
·
Canonization of dead saints
(993)
·
Fasting during the season of
Lent (998)
·
Celibacy for the priesthood
(1079)
·
Use of prayer beads (1090)
·
Seven sacraments suggested
by Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris (circa 1150)
·
Sale of Indulgences (1190)
·
Transubstantiation defined
by Pope Innocent III (1215)
·
Confession of sins to a
priest instituted by Pope Innocent III (1215)
·
Bible added to Index of
Forbidden Books (1229)
·
Cup forbidden to laity at
communion by Council of Constance (1414)
·
Doctrine of seven sacraments
affirmed (1439)
·
Doctrine of purgatory (1439)
It should be noted that the first five traditions above were
created by Constantine’s universal Church and its offspring, the Roman
Church. Roman Catholic Church
traditions created during and after Trent include:
·
Scripture to be interpreted
only within context of Catholic tradition (1545)
·
Apocryphal books added to
the bible (1545)
·
Immaculate conception of
Mary revealed by Pope Pius IX (1854)
·
Doctrine of infallibility of
Pope by Vatican Council (1870)
·
Bodily assumption of Mary
into heaven revealed by Pope Pius XII (1950)
·
Mary proclaimed the Mother
of the Church by Pope Paul VI (1965)
With every new “tradition” created and adopted, another group
wishing to be true to the teachings of Christ left the Roman Catholic
Church. While most did not
have access to a bible and many could not read anyway, the gospel was
continuing to be preached to all by those in the New Testament churches.
These were their friends and relatives, the re-baptizers, labeled
heretics first by the universal Church and then by the Roman Catholic
Church, and, at every opportunity, burned at the stake. These were the ones who took Jesus’ command seriously
“... and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and
Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth.” [Acts 1:8]
Back
to top
As can be understood from the above discussion, the Roman Catholic
Church has undergone many changes since its inception in the middle of the
5th century. One
of particular interest is its position on abortion.
Paragraph 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Since
the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured
abortion. This teaching has
not changed and remains unchangeable ....”
However, this is not true. St.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) subscribed to an earlier teaching of Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.) on human embryonic recapitulation.
This heathen theory taught that a fetus did not become human
(infusion of a soul) until it had completed several evolutionary stages. “How could this have happened?” you may ask.
Both Church leadership and membership were saturated with pagans
and their heathen influence, such as that from Aristotle.
According to the early evolutionists, the embryo evolves
through successive stages - gills, creeping thing, vertebrate, etc. -
until it finally becomes human. Aquinas
added that the male embryo becomes human at forty days, the female at
eighty. Even Emperor Gratian,
who history leads us to believe may have been a true Christian, said,
“He is not a murder who brings about abortion before the soul is in the
body.” Pope Gregory XIII
(1572-1585) affirmed that it was not murder to kill an embryo less than
forty days old. Gregory’s
successor, Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), who, as we learned in Chapter One,
inserted many errors into his re-translation of the Vulgate, disagreed and
in 1588 decreed that all abortions were murder and those participating in
same were worthy of excommunication.
His successor, Gregory XIV (1590-1591), disagreed and, once again,
there was a shift in Church position in favor of abortion.
Finally, in 1869, after the civil war in the U.S., Pope Pius IX
(1846-1878) decreed that any abortion for any reason was murder and its
participants were worthy of excommunication. 43
His pronouncement remains the official position of the Roman
Catholic Church to this day. Had
the earlier popes and St. Aquinas been as familiar with Scripture as they
were with Aristotle’s teaching, they might have recalled several
pertinent verses that make the matter of abortion, which was clearly based
on the ungodly theory of evolution, crystal clear.
“And
God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the
waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged
fowl after his kind ... Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind; cattle and creeping thing, and beast of
the earth after his kind ... And God made the beast of the earth after
his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that
creepeth upon the earth after his kind ... And God said ‘Let Us
make man in our image, after our likeness ....” [Genesis 1:21-26,
KJV]
Do you see the pattern? Each
animal was formed according to its kind.
One form of animal did not evolve or devolve into another.
Each is according to its own kind.
There is no macro-evolution from reptile to mammal.
Man, however, was formed not in the image of any animal, but in the
image of God, in His likeness.
Failure to understand and believe this leads not only to an ungodly
position on abortion, but also to acceptance of cults and New Age
religions that teach that man can, through his aspirations, evolve into
a god.
“Before
I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee ....” [Jeremias
1:5]
God knew each of us even before He formed us.
“If
men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth
prematurely, yet no harm follows (the infant survives), he shall
surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him;
and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if any harm follows (the baby she is carrying dies),
then you shall give life for life ....” [Exodus 21:22-23, NKJV]
The penalty is based on the damage.
If a death occurs to the baby she is carrying in her womb, the loss
shall be paid for with the life of the one who caused her to lose her
baby. Note there is no
stipulation that the baby in her womb must be must be forty or more days
old.
“All
flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, another of
beasts, another of birds, another of fishes.” [I Corinthians 15:39]
This verse speaks directly to Aristotle’s theory of embryonic
recapitulation and contradicts it for those who perhaps missed the point
in Genesis 1:21-26.
Back
to top
Some ask if evolution and creation can coexist, if maybe God
didn’t use evolution to develop man.
This is referred to as theistic evolution.
The answer is a clear “no” as seen from Scripture.
Also, Jesus said we would know the tree by its fruit.
The fruits of the tree of evolution are atheism, secular humanism,
abortion, and, soon, broad acceptance and practice of euthanasia.
These, in turn, produce even more rotten fruit after their kind.
Do you think God would plant a tree that would yield bad fruit?
By the wisdom of this tree, children today are taught that
they are nothing more than animals, the current chapter in the science
book of evolution. They are
not taught that evolution is just a theory and a poor one at that.
In fact, there is far more evidence to support creation than
evolution and the theory behind evolution itself is the only thing that is
evolving! First it was argued
by evolutionists that the reason one cannot find the missing links in the
fossil record is because the evolutionary process proceeds too slowly.
However, according to the most recently evolved theory, the “new
and improved” reason is that the evolutionary process proceeds too
quickly to leave any evidence in its wake.
The secondary fruits of this tree include drug abuse, rape, incest,
sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, drive-by
shootings, and a host of other modern-day maladies and perversions which
are the featured topics on one afternoon television talk show after
another. Kids take guns to school and “blow away” teachers and
those who have tormented them, thus, destroying lives, futures, and
families. But the worst fruit
of all is the eradication of the understanding that man is a being created
in God’s image, living in a fallen state as a sinner, that there is a
wage for sin, that each sinner will one day stand before a righteous God
to receive his due for works committed in the flesh (either at the Bema or
Great White Throne), and that, through the Christ of the New Testament, he
can be saved. Thus, the
rotten fruit of evolution can even steal a man’s eternity.
No, my friends, God did not plant the rotten tree of evolution. Satan did.
Isn’t it wonderful that God knew at the time He was inspiring His
prophets to write down His Holy Words in Scripture that men would create
all manner of deviant behavior and ungodly theories and He spoke to us
about them through His Word even before they were thought of by
men? Who knows what other
traditions or ungodly theories will be needed or modified in the future to
serve the fleshly needs of men? One
thing is sure, the Scriptures, even now, speak to such things, even before
they are thought of by men.
Back
to top
Many born into the Roman Catholic Church still look to her for
salvation and believe her to be the “one,
true, unchanging Church” despite her well documented past.
Why? Because they have
been taught incorrectly that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church and
He promised never to leave her. However,
this teaching is as incorrect and misleading as the Church’s teaching
that Roman Catholics wrote the New Testament.
That claim was shown to be false in Chapter One.
Despite Jesus’ prophecy that not one jot or one tittle of the law
would pass away before all be fulfilled [St. Matthew 5:18], which would
include His Second Coming as King of kings and Lord of lords, as described
in the book of Apocalypse [19:16], the Roman Catholic Church teaches that
Jesus gave her the right to change God’s Laws as she pleases.
Father E. Hayes confirms:
“The
Church is not only the guardian and teacher of the ten Commandments, but
she also carries on the work of Christ by making additional rules and
precepts to help her members live this present life in a way that will
best prepare them for the life to come.
Where does the Church get the authority to do such a thing?
From Christ, of course.” 44
One of the most remarkable things about this claim is the
Church’s apparent lack of trust in Jesus.
The Scriptures certainly indicate that Jesus thought His teachings
and revelations were sufficient to teach followers how to live in the
present life and to prepare them for the next.
Moreover, St. John reveals that those who have the anointing of the
Holy Spirit dwelling inside have no need of anyone to teach them apart
from God’s Word and that if anyone attempts to do so, they are commanded
to compare his teaching with that found in Scripture:
“Dear
children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist is
coming, so now many antichrists have arisen ... They have gone forth ...
But you have an anointing from the Holy One and you know all things (nothing
has been held back) ... let that which you have heard from the
beginning abide in you ... let the anointing which you have received from
him, dwell in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you ....”
[I St. John 2:18-27]
However, according to Father P. Stravinskas, “... Catholics do
not view the Scriptures as self-explanatory but as requiring the community
that formed the Bible to interpret it.” 45
In his book, Father Stravinskas uses the meeting between Philip and
the Ethiopian eunuch as an example:
“This
problem is faced squarely in the Acts of the Apostles when Philip asks the
Ethiopian eunuch if he understands the Scriptures he is reading. Unashamed, the man says, ‘How can I, unless someone
instructs me?’ (Acts 8:27-39)” 46
The actual text from the Roman Catholic Bible presents a somewhat
different story than that reported by Father Stravinskas:
“And
the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go near and keep close to this carriage.’
And Philip, running up, heard him reading the prophet Isaias, and
he said, ‘Dost thou then understand what thou art reading?’
But he said, ‘Why, how can I unless someone shows me?’
And he asked Philip to get up and sit with him.
Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
‘He was led like a sheep to the slaughter; and just as a lamb
dumb before its shearer, so did he not open his mouth. In humiliation his judgment was denied him; who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.’ And the eunuch answered Philip and said, ‘I pray thee, of
whom is the prophet saying this? Of
himself or of someone else?’ Then
Philip opened his mouth and, beginning from this Scripture,
preached Jesus to him.” [Acts 8:29-35]
The text makes clear that the eunuch was an educated man entrusted
with his mistress’ wealth. It
that day it was customary, for those who could, to read out loud. As they rode along, Philip told the eunuch how Jesus
fulfilled this and other prophecies as well.
Philip also taught the eunuch of Jesus’ mission from the Father
and of His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. When they reached water, the eunuch asked Philip to baptize
him and after the eunuch believed and confessed Jesus with his
mouth, Philip baptized him [Acts 8:36-39].
These verses make several things clear.
First, it was not that the eunuch did not understand the entire
body of Scriptures. In
fact, what is made clear is that the eunuch worshiped at the Temple in
Jerusalem (v 27). Therefore, he had heard the words of the prophets read many
times. There were only two
verses of Scripture in this instance that had him perplexed and they both
dealt with Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah.
Many of the Jews, too, failed to comprehend the significance of
these same verses that baffled this Jehovah-worshiping Gentile.
In fact, most of the Jews who witnessed Jesus’ literal
fulfillment of this prophecy could not identify Jesus as the Christ.
In this case, having the community that wrote this Old Testament
prophecy interpret it was antithetical to understanding its meaning!
Why? Because they did
not have eyes to see or ears to hear.
Finally, in the parable of the vine and the branches, Jesus told
His disciples, “If you abide in me, and if my words abide in you
....” [St. John 15:7] If we
cannot interpret His words, then how can His words abide in us?
So much for Father Stravinskas’ thesis that the community that
“formed” the Scriptures is necessary for its interpretation.
Moreover, as has already been noted, neither the Catholic Church
nor any of its members wrote the books of the New Testament.
It should be noted that it was the Holy Spirit of God that called
the eunuch to salvation, not Philip, and not the eunuch himself [Acts
8:26-29]. Philip was simply
God’s facilitator, just as believers are used by God today to bring the
gospel to those who will accept it. Third,
these verses clearly demonstrate that one does not need to understand the
entire body of Scriptures or belong to a particular denomination
to be saved for the text makes it clear that Philip started
teaching the eunuch from these two prophetic Old Testament verses and he
must have explained Jesus up to the point of the significance of
believer’s baptism since the eunuch asked to be baptized.
It is true, though, that if one wants to grow in his spiritual
walk, he needs to be fed. However,
one with a reborn spirit cannot be taught, and thereby grow spiritually,
by one with an unregenerated spirit.
As Jesus asked, “Can a blind man guide a blind man?” [St. Luke
6:39] And who has blinded
their eyes? Satan, the god of
this world [II Corinthians 4:3-4]. Thus,
if after becoming a believer one stays in a Church or church that preaches
a false gospel, such as salvation by faith plus works or possible loss of
salvation, he will be frustrated in his spiritual growth.
That’s why it is important for a believer to get into a
bible-believing, bible-preaching, New Testament church where he can be fed
the bread of life, not the feel-good-for-the-moment fodder of this world.
Back
to top
|
|
With regard to the Catholic Church’s insistence that only Church
hierarchy are led by the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scriptures, and not
its members, the story of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) makes an interesting
case for evaluation. In 1632,
Galileo published his work which concluded, among other things, that the
earth revolved around the sun. Such
a theory was not contradictory to Scripture but was contradictory to
Catholic tradition and teaching which held that all planets revolved
around the earth. This fit
nicely with the Church’s mistaken notion that man had some inherent good
in him and, therefore, he must be the center of God’s physical universe.
Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644), one of the infamous de Medici popes,
called the ailing, 68-year-old Galileo to stand before the Holy Office of
the Inquisition. Galileo was
charged with “grave suspicion of heresy.”
Rather than live out his few remaining years in prison, the
frightened old physicist and astronomer recanted.
He died ten years later.
The Church’s investigation of Galileo was reopened by the Vatican
in 1979. In 1992, following
years of discussion and more investigations, the famed scientist and
inventor of the most powerful telescope of his day, like earlier
heretic-turned-saint, Joan of Arc, was pronounced innocent of the charge
of heresy by a papal commission. Following
the Church’s mishandling of the Galileo “heresy,” the Second Vatican
Council clarified that Scriptural inerrancy was limited to matters
pertaining to faith and morals. Thus,
rather than take responsibility for its 17th century error, the
Church blamed the Scriptures for being in error on matters
concerning the physical universe!
Back
to top
St. Jude tells us in verses 3-4 (the book of St. Jude contains only
one chapter):
“Beloved,
while I was making every endeavor to write to you about our common
salvation, I found it necessary to write to you, exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
For certain men have stealthily entered in, who long ago were
marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men who turn the grace of God
into wantonness (greed)....”
Once again, just as Jesus warned in His day, the traditions of men
make God’s Word void [see St. Mark 7:13].
As noted earlier by Father Hayes, the Catholic Church believes she
has the authority from Christ to obviate old laws and make new ones.
The Church bases her position on St. Matthew 16:13-19.
Verses 13-18 deal with St. Peter and the rock. The authorizing verse for the Church’s claimed authority is
derived from verse 19, wherein Jesus told St. Peter:
“And
I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
It would certainly not be unreasonable to conclude from this
single verse that Jesus is indeed turning everything over to
St. Peter. Jesus seems to be
saying to St. Peter, “You are in authority.
The door to the kingdom is locked and here are the keys.
However, if you decide, for whatever reason, that you do not like
these particular keys, you have authority from Me to change out the lock
and make new keys.”
The dangers of interpreting Scripture based on a single verse were
discussed earlier. If there
were not many other verses invalidating such an interpretation, it would
be a reasonable one indeed. Before
moving on to that question, however, it may be worth noting that even the
most liberal interpretation of the above verse does not support the
Church’s claim made at the First Vatican Council in 1870 that St.
Peter’s authority was passed on to his successors.
Moreover, no verse in the New Testament gives St. Peter the title
of pope, first among equals, Bishop of Bishops, Pontifex Maximus,
or any other such title. The
only title for St. Peter appears in I St. Peter 5:1 wherein St. Peter
refers to himself as a “fellow-presbyter,” an elder.
Therefore, the claim of papal succession comes not from Scripture
but from post-biblical traditions, what Jesus condemned as the traditions
of men.
Back
to top
In arriving at its position on the Church’s claimed authority to
eradicate old laws and make new ones, the expositors have tied two
unrelated things together, namely, (1) the keys to the kingdom, and (2)
the power of binding and loosening. To
determine the meaning of Jesus’ words, we must search the Scriptures
objectively. The first thing
one notices in the subject verse [St. Matthew 16:19] is the use of the
word “keys.” Why not
simply “the key” to the kingdom of heaven?
One often hears of the mayor giving someone the “key” to the
city. And the use of the
singular “key” would do no damage to the subject verse if the Catholic
Church’s interpretation is correct.
In fact, it would be even more appropriate: one Church, one key.
To interpret Scripture, bible students are taught to use the
literal meaning first and check to see if that interpretation can be
confirmed by other verses used elsewhere in Scripture.
This is the situation in the instant case.
The word key or keys is used eight times both in the Roman Catholic
and the King James Version of the bible.
The word “key” appears two times in the Old Testament:
(1) “And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his
shoulder ...” [Isaias 20:22], and (2) “Since he did not open the doors
of the upper room, they took the key and opened them ...” [Judges
3:25]. In the first instance,
the word key is used as a figure of privilege, as can be determined by the
context in which it is used. God
says He will call His servant Eliacim, clothe him, strengthen him, give
him power, and give him the key to the house of David (the southern
kingdom of Judah). In other words, He will use him to bring about Judah’s
destiny (privilege). This Old
Testament verse, like many others, is a future prophecy of the risen
Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords, as shown below.
In the second instance, key is used in a literal sense by concerned
servants to open doors behind which they find the dead body of their
master.
The word “key” appears four times in the New Testament: (1) Jesus says, “Woe to you lawyers! Because you have taken away the key of knowledge ...” [St.
Luke 11:52]; (2) Jesus says, “Thus says the holy one, the true one, he
who has the key of David, he who opens and no one shuts, and who shuts and
no one opens ...” [Apocalypse 3:7]; (3) St. John says, “And the fifth
angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw that a star had fallen from heaven
upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless
pit” [Apocalypse 9:1]; and (4) St. John says, “And I saw an angel
coming down from heaven, having the key to the abyss and a great chain in
his hand.” [Apocalypse
20:1] In the first instance,
Jesus uses “key” as we might today in saying that a good education is
the key to a good job. Jesus
accused the religious leaders of taking away the key of knowledge from the
people, thus keeping them in the dark about God’s Law rather than
teaching them, as they should have. God’s
Word tells us, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” [Hosea
4:6, KJV] In the second
instance, the word key is used as a symbol of authority rather than
privilege. In this verse can be seen the fulfillment of Isaias 20:22,
discussed above. Moreover,
this verse makes it clear that only Jesus opens and shuts, not St. Peter,
his successors, or any Church.
In the third and fourth instances, the word key is used in a
literal sense to open the pit or abyss.
Concerning the above, the construction is one key to knowledge, one
key to the house of David, one key to the bottomless pit, and one key to
the abyss.
The word “keys” appears only twice in the New Testament. In Apocalypse 1:18, Jesus says “... I am living
forevermore; and I have the keys of death and of hell.”
One key is of death, the other of hell.
The pattern with the use of the word key for one item
(discussed above) and keys for two is consistent.
Thus, in the seven of eight instances examined, there is a
consistency in the use of the words key and keys.
In the eight instance, Jesus tells St. Peter, “And I will give
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ....” [St. Matthew 16:19] Based on the pattern seen above, namely, the use of the word
key for a single item and keys for two, we might suspect that such a
pattern would continue. Thus,
the task at hand now is to identify two things associated with St. Peter
and the plural keys.
Back
to top
The obvious starting point is “binding and loosening,” these
are two things. Let’s
see if we can find the words binding and loosening used again in the
Scriptures and whether or not they are associated with “keys.”
Jesus says to His disciples:
“Amen
I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [St. Matthew
18:18]
The first thing to be noted in the above promise is that the power
to bind and loose was given to all Jesus’ disciples. The promise to St. Peter was twofold, namely, that (1) he
would have the keys to the kingdom, and (2) the power to bind and loose.
Considering St. Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 together, one has to
conclude that the two items, keys and the power to bind and loose, are not
related to one another since only the second part of the promise to St.
Peter is made also to His disciples. In other words, if keys were associated with binding and
loosening, then Jesus would have promised both keys and the power to bind
and loose to all His disciples in St. Matthew 18:18, rather than just
binding and loosening.
Binding and loosening are discussed by Jesus in the above citation
within the context of forgiving sin.
This can be confirmed by examining St. John 20:22-23.
Jesus is again speaking to His disciples shortly after His
resurrection. Prior to His
ascension:
“...
He breathed upon them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose
sins you shall forgive (loose on earth), they are forgiven
them (loosed in heaven); and whose sins you shall retain (bind
on earth), they are retained (bound in heaven)’”
This view is supported in St. Matthew 10:14-15, wherein Jesus tells
His apostles:
“And
whoever does not receive you, or listen to your words - go forth outside
that house or town, and shake off the dust from your feet.
Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom
and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that town.”
Jesus is saying that those who reject the words of His ambassadors
reject Him and His Father’s free offer of salvation for it is a tendered
gift [Ephesians 2:8]. He
notes that their punishment will be similar to that experienced by the
inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. While
the land of Sodom and Gomorrah was scorched only temporarily and
eventually recovered, the inhabitants of that land, like those who reject
the Jesus of the New Testament, will be scorched forever and ever in the
pool of fire [see Apocalypse 20:14-15].
What has been demonstrated to this point is that St. Peter’s keys
and his power to bind and loose are not related.
Moreover, Jesus’ disciples and His apostles were all given the
same power to bind and loose, as was St. Peter.
Thus, we must examine the Scriptures further to discover the
meaning of the “keys to the kingdom.”
Back
to top
When one thinks about who will inherit the kingdom, it is obvious
that there will be only two classes of persons who do so:
believing Jews and believing Gentiles.
It was in just such a binary way that the Jews viewed the world at
the time of Jesus and long before. The
Jews would be saved and the Gentiles lost!
In St. John 10:16, Jesus revealed a startling mystery to the Jews:
“And
other sheep I have that are not of this fold (believing Jews).
Them (believing Gentiles) also I must bring, and they (Gentiles)
shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold (believing Jews and
believing Gentiles) and one shepherd (Jesus).”
Jesus is saying that He has two sheep folds, believing Jews and
believing Gentiles, and that He must combine them into one sheepfold with
one shepherd. Since this is
the story of the Good Shepherd, it is obvious that Jesus is that Good
Shepherd. He is the only
One who could be the Good Shepherd since God tells us that there is none
among men who is good, no not one [see Psalms 13 (14):3; Psalms 52
(53):2; and Romans 3:10-12].
At this point, let’s return our attention to St. Peter to see if
there are any two outstanding things in his life to which the keys could
relate. And, of course, the
answer is “yes.” St.
Peter was the first to preach Jesus resurrected to the Jews, as recorded
in the book of Acts [Acts 2:14-41], and the Lord added (to His church)
that day about three thousand souls. The number of souls saved on this first Christian Pentecost
contrasts with the three thousand souls slain by the Levites at Moses’
command when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the people
worshiping a golden calf, breaking God’s commandments not to carve any
image or bow down before it. They
had crafted it not to represent a false Egyptian god, but rather the
God that had brought them out of the land of Egypt.
That would be Jehovah God. They
had built an altar before it. Aaron
had proclaimed, “Tomorrow is a great feast of the LORD.”
The next day the people offered gifts to the image, ate, and then
reveled around it. Upon
seeing this, God’s anger blazed up and He sent Moses back down to the
“stiff-necked” people [Exodus 32:1-28].
St. Peter used the first key to unlock the door to the kingdom of
heaven to these stiff-necked people [see Jeremias 17:23] so that believing
Jews could enter [Acts 2:41].
Despite having seen the Holy Spirit come upon the Samaritans, as
recorded in Acts 8:14-17, St. Peter resisted taking the gospel to the
Gentile “dogs” [Acts 10:9-16]. However,
his reluctance was overcome, not uncharacteristically, by a triad from God
in the form of a thrice-repeated vision.
St. Peter then obeyed and went to the house of the centurion,
Cornelius, a Gentile who had prayed to the Jews’ God just several days
before. Upon entering his home, St. Peter preached Jesus resurrected
to Cornelius and his family and friends.
While he was still speaking, the Holy Spirit came down upon all who
were listening to (believing in) his message.
The Jews accompanying St. Peter were amazed to see that salvation
had come to the Gentiles also. Cornelius
and all in attendance who believed were baptized [Acts 10:21-48].
Thus, St. Peter used the second key to unlock the door to believing
Gentiles. St. Peter’s use
of the keys to open the doors to the kingdom for all by preaching
Jesus is referred to among bible-believing Christians as the Petrine
privilege. It is the duty of
every born-again believer to share the gospel with nonbelievers:
“...
but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you
shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and
even to the very ends of the earth.” [Acts 1:8]
Believers today receive power when they accept the Jesus of the New
Testament as their Lord and Savior.
Back
to top
It should be noted that the above verse is not prophecy, but a
command from the Master. Moreover,
it can be understood from this verse that it is the obligation of every
believer, not just those of Jesus’ day, to be a witness.
The fact that the message is to be taken to the ends of the earth
demonstrates the veracity of such an interpretation.
In Jesus’ time, it was not possible to take the message to the
ends of the earth. Moreover,
we know that the gospel has not been preached throughout the whole world
because the end has not yet come:
“And
this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a
witness to all nations (Jews and Gentiles); and then will come the
end.” [St. Matthew 24:14]
St. Paul reminds the leaders of the church at Ephesus prior to his
last departure:
“...
I am innocent of the blood of all (men); for I have not shrunk from
declaring to you the whole counsel of God ... that for three years night
and day I did not cease with tears to admonish (warn) every one of
you (to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or else face the fires of hell).”
[Acts 20:31]
St. Paul’s claim that he is innocent of the blood of all men is
based on Ezechiel 3:17-19. Ezechiel was a Jewish prophet taken from the southern kingdom
(Judah) to Tel Abib near the Chebar river during the Babylonian captivity
(597 B.C.):
“Son
of man (Ezechiel), I (God) have made thee a watchman to the
house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth and shalt tell
it (to) them (the Israelites) for me.
If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die:
thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be
converted from his wicked way, and live:
the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require
his blood at thy hand. But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not
converted from his wickedness and from his evil way:
he shall indeed die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy
soul.”
The above verses present two cases.
In the first, the sinner is not warned by the watchman that his
ways are evil and that if he does not change, he will die in his sins. In this case, God says that the wicked man shall die in his
sins but the watchman shall give an accounting also. In the second instance, the watchman gives the wicked man the
warning but the man continues his evil ways and dies in his sins.
In this case, the watchman did his duty and he is innocent of the
blood of this man. Ezechiel,
as the watchman, is accountable for the faithful deliverance of
God's message, not its effect, or lack of same, on the recipient.
Thus, St. Paul could say that through his persistent delivery of
the complete gospel (the whole counsel of God) to all men with whom he
came in contact during his three-year mission in Ephesus, sometimes to the
point of tears, he was innocent of the blood of any who perished [Acts
20:27]. Would that all who
call themselves Christian could say as much. Unfortunately, most of us cannot.
Back
to top
ABC aired a segment on its 20/20 news show in May of 2000.
The story revolved around the conversion of a thirteen-year old boy
by the youth group of a
Baptist church in Dallas, Texas. The
boy was invited to an evening gathering by his Baptist friends.
An altar call was made and the boy came forward and answered,
“Yes, Lord.” The boy’s
divorced mother and father made an issue out of the matter and appeared on
20/20 to criticize the church’s practice of proselytization.
The pastor of the church readily admitted on camera that their
intent is always to make converts for Jesus, that this is their
charge from the Lord. When
the ABC correspondent asked the pastor why he wasn’t content to let
others take their own paths to heaven, the pastor answered that there is
only one path and that Jesus is that one path.
Amen! Then the pastor
quoted Jesus: “I am the
way, and the truth, and the life. No
one comes to the Father but through me.” [St. John 14:6]
This brave pastor was following the Master’s command with regard
to binding and loosening, with regard to whose sins are forgiven and whose
are retained. Moreover, when
Jesus’ disciples tried to stop the children from approaching the Lord,
Jesus said to them:
“...
Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me, for
of such is the kingdom of heaven.” [St. Matthew 19:14]
At the end of the segment, the correspondent appeared back in the
studio with Ms. Barbara Walters. The
correspondent told Ms. Walters, with what appeared to be some degree of
surprise, that the pastor took Jesus’ statement that He was the only
way literally. Ms.
Walters looked shocked. She
inquired if all Christian churches took Jesus’ words so literally.
The correspondent smiled a smile of relief, shook her head, and
answered “no.”
Christians are often surprised when those with dead spirits cannot
understand the spiritual significance of things. However, we should not be surprised that some media persons
“just don’t get it” when it comes to spiritual matters. As candidate George Bush answered during a televised debate
concerning a follow-up question on the meaning of his being born again,
“If I have to explain it," the Governor clarified, "you
won’t get it.” Mr. Bush
wasn’t being brusque or evasive. He
was simply giving a modern translation of Jesus' words:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit.” [St. John 3:6]
Those who were reborn or “born from above” would understand and
those who were not could not no matter how many follow-up questions they
might be allowed to ask [see II Corinthians 4:3-4].
God says to the overseers in charge of His flock:
“Cry,
cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their
wicked doings and the house of Jacob their sins.” [Isaias 58:1]
The fact is that many pastors and denominations who call themselves
Christian do not take Jesus’ words literally, as the ABC correspondent
confirmed to Ms. Walters. Many,
unlike St. Paul, have blood on their hands, lots of blood.
And, as the Scriptures testify, they shall answer for it.
Back
to top
Today, the world celebrates diversity.
This activist agenda is being pushed hardest by those who are
spiritually dead: radical
feminists, including lesbians; and their empowered and wealthy white-male
supporters, including homosexual activists.
It was reported on the Entertainment Network’s Celebrity Profile
in June 2000 that upon meeting Ellen Degeneres at a White House dinner in
1998, President Clinton told her, “I really admire you.”
Ellen, of course, is the situation comedy actress who came out of
the closet in 1997 on her Disney-produced series, “Ellen,” as well as
in her real life. The series
was subsequently canceled.
In November 1993, the World Council of Churches (WCC) sponsored a
women’s conference in Minneapolis.
The theme of the gathering, which was attended by more than two
thousand women, was “Re-imaging.”
The objects to be “re-imaged” were no less than Christ and
Christianity. The dais
was filled with activists and noted feminist scholars and writers from
virtually all sponsoring denominations, including United Methodist,
Lutheran, United Presbyterian, Church of Christ, and Roman Catholic.
These women represented “diverse views,” with regard to
spiritual matters but all approved of pantheism, existentialism, abortion,
lesbianism, homosexuality, and bisexuality, just to name a few examples.
Various speakers took turns emasculating God and Jesus and
religious organizations run
largely by what they termed “patriarchal males.”
The activists honed their words carefully so as to solicit approval
from their “sisters.” One
of the women took to the podium and informed her listeners that:
“I don’t think we need a theory of atonement at all ... I
don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and
weird stuff ... we just need to listen to the God within.”
Another speaker clarified for her listeners that Lazarus’
sisters, Martha and Mary, were really lesbian lovers, not familial
sisters. A group of approximately one hundred “lesbian, bi-sexual,
and transsexual” women were called to the stage for special recognition.
They were celebrating the “miracle” of being lesbian, out,
and Christian. The
conferees applauded them for being lesbian, out, and Christian.
Some of the most vociferous and impassioned speakers were Catholic
nuns who railed against old fuddy-duddy popes for keeping them out of the
Church hierarchy. Quiet
submission to authority was not one of the marks of faith for these
conferees. Proverbs 31:30
tells us: “... the woman
who fears (respects) the LORD is to be praised.”
Why? Because if she
respects the LORD, she will respect also His authority over her, she will obey
Him and respect other authorities God has placed over her.
But just as nuns are throwbacks to the atavistic Vestal Virgins, so
the words spoken at the conference hearken back to the themes and times of
the first apostate religion, the Babylonian Cult.
This was mostly a “women’s following,” with the
mother-goddess Semiramis being in charge of the her god-son Tammuz.
Attendees in Minneapolis put forth an old goddess for worship under
a new name: Sophia (Greek,
means wisdom). One of
the speakers explained that Sophia was the suppressed part of the biblical
tradition and the female face of the human psyche.
On Sunday morning, the “faithful” met to pray:
“Our
maker Sophia, we are women in your image ... Sophia, creator God ....
shower us with your love ... we invite a lover, we birth a child; with our
warm body fluids we remind the world of its pleasures and sensations ...
Our guide, Sophia, we are women in your image ... With the honey of wisdom
in our mouths, we prophesy a full humanity to all the peoples.”
47
It is likely that none of the speakers remembered Romans 1:22-32:
“For
while professing to be wise, they have become fools, and they have changed
the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like to corruptible
man and to birds and to four-footed beasts and creeping things.
Therefore God has given them up in the lustful desires of their
heart to uncleanness, so that they dishonor their own bodies among
themselves, they who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever,
amen. For this cause, God has
given them up to shameful lusts ... for their women have exchanged the
natural use of that which is against nature ... Although they have known
the ordinance (laws) of God, they have not understood that those
who practice such things are deserving of death.
And not only do they do these things (themselves),
but they applaud others doing them.”
How’s that for an old-imaged God?
He addressed the lies of the New Age feminists nearly two thousand
years before their conference to celebrate and applaud lesbianism,
along with other sexually deviant practices!
With regard to their mouths being filled with the honey of
wisdom, God’s Word warns:
“The
lips of an adulteress drip with honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil;
But in the end she is as bitter as wormwood (hemlock), as sharp as
a two-edged sword. Her feet
go down to death, to the nether world her steps attain.”
[Proverbs 5:3-5]
Identifying Sophia as a goddess makes it clear.
The old name for the “new goddess” Sophia is none other than
Semiramis, the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, the female goddess of
the oldest apostate religious system, Babylon.
Sophia Press prints and distributes religious materials for
the Roman Catholic Church. Their
logo is a sketch of a woman in profile with long, flowing hair.
Back
to top
It is interesting that these women should choose to call upon the
goddess Sophia. According to
Greek theology, Sophia was the one who created the evil, materialistic
world in which human souls are trapped.
Emperor Justinian (483-565) injected Sophia into Catholicism when
he constructed a great edifice at Constantinople called Hagai Sophia, the
Church of the Holy Wisdom in 538. It
is now a Mosque.
This is where the false teaching of Mary as Mother of God
and Queen of Heaven has taken many unsuspecting women.
But how did this false teaching, once confined to the Roman
Catholic and Orthodox Churches, penetrate other denominations to the
extent that women from Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other
Protestant organizations would embrace a female goddess?
The long answer involves a falling away from fundamentalism by some
Protestant churches; incorporation of the false doctrines of Darwinism,
evolution, and humanism; and the injection of liberalism and modernism,
under the banner of Textual Criticism, into mainstream churches to create
a false religion of neo-fundamentalism that is more concerned with social
issues than soteriology. The
short answer is ecumenism, a damnable heresy that says, “there are many
paths, each can take his own way, let’s not argue over irrelevant
doctrinal points. Rather, let
us put aside such trivial matters so we can concentrate on the mission we
have with regard to common social goals.”
However, St. Jude exhorts us to “... contend earnestly for the
faith once for all delivered to the saints.” [St. Jude 3]
Jesus said those who were not with Him were against Him and that
those who did not help Him gather were scatterers of the flock [see St.
Luke 11:23]. Thus, ecumenism
is a doctrine of devils [see I Timothy 4:1].
Back
to top
The United Nations, an organization condemned to failure from its
inception by its compromise with communist countries not to put the word
“God” in its charter or on its building, declared 1986 to be the
International Year of Peace. Pope
John Paul II set aside December 24, 1986 as a Day of Prayer for World
Peace and on February 10, 1986 invited leaders of the Catholic Church; Old
Catholics (various sects of Catholics who rejected the “new,” 1870
doctrine of papal infallibility); Protestant Churches; Orthodox Churches;
and non-Christian religions to participate in that Day of Prayer.
Some 160 participants representing virtually all “Christian”
organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church; the World Council of
Churches; the National Council of Churches; the YMCA and YWCA; Quaker;
Minnonite World Conference; Reformed Ecumenical Synod; Baptist World
Alliance; Disciples of Christ; Lutheran World Federation; Anglican
Communion; Old Catholic Union of Utrecht (one sect of Old Catholics); and
the Greek, Russian, and Eastern Orthodox Churches met in Assisi, Italy on
December 24th. Also
participating were about 40 leaders from eleven non-Christian religions,
including Hindus; Sikhs; Buddhists; Judaism; Islam; African and North
American animists who worship spirits and nature; ancestor-worshiping
Japanese Shintoists; fire-worshiping Zoroastrians; Baha’i; and the Dalai
Lama, the exiled god-king of Tibet.
According to an Associated Press report:
“ASSISI,
Italy - Chants, temple bells and pagan spells echoed around the Roman
Catholic shrines of Assisi yesterday as Pope John Paul II and his 200
guests from the world’s 12 main religions prayed for world peace ...
“The
medicine man of the Crow Indians [spirit worshipers], Chief John
Pretty-on-Top, offered to cast out evil spirits.
Many came forward, among them a young Franciscan monk.
“In
a chapel down the road, the head of the Zoroastrian church in Bombay
prayed before a fire that symbolized his God.
“Next
door, six turbaned Sikhs - all Italian converts - sat chanting their
prayers in the lotus position to gramophone music.
“At
an old Roman temple, shoeless Moslems sat on prayer mats.
“The
14th Dalai Lama, exiled god-king of Tibet, headed the strong
Buddhist contingent, mumbling sutras amid tinkling bells at the Basilica
of St. Peter.
“In
the gardens outside, a Shinto sect called Tenrikyo, in black kimonos,
swayed to temple music.
“African
animists, their togas the envy of any designer, invoked the spirits of
trees and plants to come to the aid of peace ...” (Christian Beacon,
December 25, 1986, p. 7).
God warns in Proverbs 14:12:
“Sometimes
a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death.”
Ecumenism is a Satanic philosophy put into the hearts of men who
mistakenly believe there is some inherent good in all men and that such
men are capable of performing good works apart from the Jesus of the New
Testament [see Colossians 2:8]. However,
we know that apart from Jesus, nothing is really good.
It is painful for any believer to tell someone he or she loves or
even a stranger that he is on the path to hell and that only Jesus is the
Way, the Truth, and the Life [see St. John 14:6].
Yet this is exactly what our Lord commands of every
believer. Jesus prophesied:
“Do
not think that I came to bring peace on earth.
I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against
her mother, and a daughter‑in‑law against her
mother‑in‑law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own
household. He who loves
father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.
And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not
worthy of Me. [St. Matthew 10:34-38, NKJV]
Ecumenism is a Satanic alternative to being His witnesses. In taking up our crosses, we must not shrink from the pain
associated with being witnesses for Him.
Moreover, we owe it to all to tell them about Jesus.
Based on Jesus’ account of the rich man in hell and his torments
and his concern for his nonbelieving brothers who were still alive, as
recorded beginning in St. Luke 16:19, one can almost hear the cries of
those in hell futilely asking of us still alive, “Why didn’t you tell
me? Was I not your friend?” Don’t
be afraid to share Jesus’ saving power with your friends and others.
If some deride you and label you a proselytizer, wear the moniker
with pride knowing that with their mouths they confirm that you are doing
the Lord’s work, following His command, confessing Him
before men [see St. Matthew
10:32]. Never give them
reason to call out, “Why didn’t you tell me?”
St. Paul told those at Miletus:
“...
I am innocent of the blood of all (men); for I have not shrunk from
declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” [Acts 20:26-27]
St. Paul tells believers that if those to whom they witness reject
the message, then:
“Do
not bear the yoke with unbelievers. For
what has justice in common with iniquity?
Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Satan)?
Or what part has the believer with the unbeliever?
And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?
For you are the temple of the living God, as God says, ‘I will
dwell and move among them, I will be their God and they shall be my
people.’ Wherefore, ‘Come out from among them (unbelievers),
be separated says the LORD,
and touch not an unclean thing; and I will welcome you in, and will be a
Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the LORD
almighty.’” [II Corinthians 6:14-18]
Could it be any clearer? Believers
are not to participate with pagans in worship.
While many may feel that it is acceptable to agree with
nonbelievers on some common ground in order to accomplish some good, note
what God says through St. Paul: “What
agreement has the temple of God with idols?”
Concerning ecumenism and coming together to pray, God says:
“If
My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and
seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from
heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” [II Chronicles
7:14, NKJV]
Note that this is an invitation from God to His people and
His people only. Worshipers
of Isis and Horus and other
false gods are not invited! Can
you imagine the prophet Elias (also spelled Elijah) calling for joint
prayer with the high priests of Baal?
Hardly. Instead, Elias made fun of their god, suggesting that they
call to him with louder voices, that perhaps Baal was sleeping [see III
Kings 18:27]. Elias did not
demonstrate an ecumenical spirit! Neither
did he celebrate the diversity of paths.
It is indeed difficult to imagine that there was not a single
believer at that 1986 Prayer Day gathering willing to stand up and say,
“Friends, I see that you are in every respect extremely religious.
Let me tell you about Jesus and the wonderful things He did for me
and you ....” Does such an
idea sound foreign to you? Or
even crazy? I hope not
because that is exactly what St. Paul said to the men of Athens on Mars
Hill:
“Men
of Athens, I see that in every respect you are extremely religious.”
[Acts 17:22]
Then St. Paul proceeded to preach Jesus resurrected and the good
news of the gospel. It is
hard to believe that the one who claims to stand in the shoes of
St. Peter, the one who claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth,
infallible, and led by the Holy Spirit, failed to stand up and preach
Christ crucified, buried, and raised from the dead bodily!
Instead, Pope John Paul II acted like his true predecessor, the
Emperor and Pontifex Maximus, the head of all pagan religions.
Not a single bishop of the Protestant faith stood up to preach
Jesus. No Patriarch of the
Orthodox faith came forward. In
an age when many of these denominations have taken a stand supporting
premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, bisexuality, divorce, and even
the ordination of women, homosexuals, and lesbians to the pulpit, no one
stood up for Jesus [see Philippians 2:14-16].
Not the Reverend Robert Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Not Gunnar Stalsett, head of the Lutheran World Foundation.
Not Bernice Schrotenboer, Reformed Evangelical Synod.
Not Allan Boesak, head of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. And not Mother Teresa, a renowned Catholic nun who in
numerous interviews with the world spectrum of publishers boasted
that she had never even once tried to proselytize anyone!
This soon-to-be “saint” of the Roman Catholic faith proudly
informed her interviewers that she simply tried to make the Hindu a better
Hindu and the Buddhist a better Buddhist.
Compare “saint” Teresa’s attitude and perspective with those
of another saint, St. Paul:
“...
I have kept back nothing that was for your good, but have declared it to
you and taught you in public and from house to house.” [Acts 20:20]
St. Paul preached Jesus to anyone who would listen and at the end
of his life found himself “innocent of the blood of all men” because
he had revealed the whole counsel of God [Acts 20:26-27].
While Mother Teresa’s failure to follow the Lord’s command to
be a witness for Him [Acts 1:8] is shocking to any believer, it is not
surprising. As foretold by St. Paul in II Thessalonians 2:3:
“Let
no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord (His second
coming) will not come unless the apostasy comes first ....”
In 1997, Mother Teresa traveled to Washington, DC to receive the
Congressional Gold Medal for her humanitarian works.
She explained to the Congressmen her motto: “all for Jesus.” And
no one can question that Mother Teresa did a lot for humanity and no
doubt, from her perspective, she did it all for Jesus.
However, while Mother Teresa understood the words “all for
Jesus,” she apparently didn’t understand the eternal significance of
turning those words around: “Jesus
for all.” Those
sick and dying Hindus, Buddhists, and others were not only sick in body
but also dead in spirit, according to the Catholic Bible.
While Mother Teresa’s works are laudable in the flesh, Jesus’
words speak to her failure to follow His command to be a witness:
“These things you ought to have done (tending to the sick),
while not leaving the others (being His witness) undone.” [St.
Matthew 23:23].
While St. Peter used the keys to open the doors to the kingdom,
each born-again believer has a responsibility and a privilege to be an
usher in the kingdom, sharing the gospel with whomever will listen and
ushering in all who accept it.
Back
to top
|
|
Be not deceived my friend, the prophesied apostasy has arrived.
And it will only grow stronger in the fertile soils of ecumenism
and diversity. The ecumenical
movement will turn into an ecumenical, universal Church which will become
the One World Religion, the woman who rides the beast in Chapter 17 of the
book of Apocalypse. This
apostate religious system will exercise control over the beast (world
leader and his One World Government) during the first half of Daniel’s
70th week of years (the final seven years before Christ returns
to earth) [Daniel 9:24-27], a three-and-a-half-year period of time known
as the Tribulation. During
the second half of the 70th week, that is, the last
three-and-a-half years, known as the Great Tribulation and the time
of Jacob’s Trouble [Jeremias 30:7], the world leader will be killed but
then miraculously resurrected and literally possessed by Satan.
He will then throw off the shackles of the apostate, universal
Church and destroy it [Apocalypse 17:16].
Back
to top
Catholic and other Churches erroneously teach that Christ came into
this world to “establish The Church.”
However, there is not one word of Scripture to support this thesis. Moreover, given the important roles each of these
“Churches” has usurped with regard to salvation, it is little wonder
they teach this and other errors. God’s
Word tells us why the Jesus of the New Testament entered the world:
“...
the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” [St. Luke 19:10]
“...
I ... have come to save the world.” [St. John 12:47]
“For
God did not send his Son into the world in order to judge the world, but
that the world might be saved through him.” [St. John 3:17]
“This
saying is true and worthy of entire acceptance, that Jesus Christ came
into the world to save sinners ....” [I Timothy 1:15]
Moreover, when Jesus sent His disciples out into the world, He told
them to preach the gospel [St. Mark 16:15].
He did not tell them to promote the concept of a universal Church
with a hierarchy that would include priests, Bishops (pastors over other
pastors), Archbishops, Cardinals, curia, and a pope and to establish a
sacramental system to affect a salvation process.
If salvation is an accomplished fact for each believer through
Jesus’ atoning death on the cross, as the Scriptures clearly teach, then
certainly such a complex organization and soteriological scheme are
unnecessary. On the other
hand, if salvation was not accomplished on that cross but is, as The
Churches teach, a life-long process for the individual, then such a
complex institutional organization and soteriological scheme would be
necessary.
Finally, when the local church, in Greek, the ekklesia, is
referred to as Jesus’ body, it is not a reference to some universal
mystical collection of people, some on earth and others in heaven.
Rather, it means a body of people called out for a special purpose.
Jehovah God called out the Jews in the Old Testament.
The ekklesia is the body of Christ on earth.
Jesus’ body left this earth.
However, before leaving, He promised to establish His church [see
St. Matthew 16:18]. And it
was established at Jerusalem on Pentecost.
What did the body of Christ do when He walked this earth?
He sought to save that which was lost.
He preached sin, repentance, and eternal life.
What are the members of His ekklesia, believers, to do?
The same thing. Take His message of salvation to a lost world.
Back
to top
Another source of controversy is the Catholic Church’s
traditional claim that Jesus built His church upon St. Peter.
The Church bases this teaching on several verses of Scripture,
including:
“Now
Jesus, having come into the district of Caesarea Philippi, began to ask
his disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say the Son of Man is?’
But they said, ‘Some say, John the Baptist:
and others, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.’
He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’
Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ (Messiah),
the Son of the living God.’ Then Jesus answered and said, ‘Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my
Father who is in heaven. And
I say also to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” [St.
Matthew 16:13-18]
Prior to arriving at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus had spent the
previous three days on the other side of the Sea of Galilee healing the
lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and others brought to Him by the throngs of
people who followed after Him hoping for a miracle.
Prior to dismissing the large gathering, Jesus, for the second time
in His public ministry, multiplied the loaves and fishes and fed the crowd
of more than four thousand so they might be sustained during their
journeys home [St. Matthew 15:38].
When Jesus and His disciples arrived at Caesarea Philippi, they
were met by a group of Pharisees and Sadducees.
The Pharisees were no doubt more than a little agitated. Just days earlier they had accused Jesus of casting out
devils by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils [St. Matthew
12:24]. In response to the
hardness of their hearts and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Jesus had
referred to them as a “generation of vipers” and children of the devil
[St. Matthew 12:34 and 23:33 and St. John 8:44].
This must have cut the Torah-schooled Pharisees to the quick and
brought their anger to a quick boil.
They all would have understood Jesus’ comment to mean that He was
labeling them - the holy ones of Israel - the spawn of Satan, the seed of
the serpent referred to in Genesis 3:15.
It is interesting to note that Jesus never referred to Gentiles or
non-clerical Jews as the seed of Satan.
Rather, He referred to the Gentiles (who practiced paganism) and to
the non-clerical Jews as lost sheep without a shepherd.
Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for the Jewish religious
leaders of His day who openly exhibited a hardness of heart and, as Jesus
said, made the Word of God void by their traditions.
The Pharisees and Sadducees again confronted Jesus with their
demand to see a “sign.” In
light of the many miracles Jesus had performed, their demand should be
understood as nothing less than a direct insult to Jesus and His ministry.
Jesus was aware of this. He
knew, too, that if He produced a sign, there would be no end.
The next group of nonbelievers would demand an even more convincing
sign and so on and His ministry would be turned from preaching the kingdom
into a sideshow.
Jesus chided the Pharisees and Sadducees by affirming that they
could discern the weather by the face of the sky.
But He asked them how it was that they did not recognize the time
of their visitation (by the Messiah) [see Daniel 9:24-26].
Because of their unbelief, Jesus referred to them as a wicked and
adulterous generation and promised there would be no sign except the sign
of the prophet Jonas. By
this, Jesus meant that just as Jonas had spent three days and nights in
the belly of the great fish prepared by God [Jonas 2:1], so He would spend
three days and nights in the heart of the earth.
After warning His disciples to beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees, that is, beware of their hardness of heart and
false teachings which, when they spread, bring the good to ruin, Jesus
asked His disciples who people said He was.
They replied John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the
other prophets. Jesus quarried them further, asking who they thought
He was. It was in response to
this question that St. Peter replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.” [St.
Matthew 16:16]
Jesus’ response to St. Peter’s confession of faith acknowledged
that St. Peter was blessed with the answer and that he had not arrived at
it through his own abilities [St. Matthew 16:17].
In addressing St. Peter as Simon Bar-Jona, Jesus may have been
using a double reference. Bar
means “son of.” Peter’s
father’s name was Jonas. However,
just as the prophet Jonas disobeyed God’s command to take a message of
repentance to the people of Nineveh, the capital of the much-feared
Assyrians, until God prepared a great fish to assist in His will being
done [Jonas 1:2-3], so Jesus knew, too, that St. Peter would resist
God’s will that he take the gospel message to the Gentiles, as discussed
earlier [see Acts 10:9-16, and 28].
It is at this point that Jesus says, “And I say to thee, thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (ekklesia), and
the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it.” [St.
Matthew 16:18]
There has been much debate over the centuries as to the meaning of
Jesus’ words here. Some
interpret this verse as Jesus saying, “Peter, I will build my church (ekklesia)
upon you.” If this is the
message Jesus intended His followers to understand, however, He probably
would have said so simply and clearly.
Some argue that Jesus would not have chosen to build His church on
St. Peter because he can be seen from Scripture often to be rash,
ill-tempered, and headstrong not only prior to Jesus’ resurrection but
also after [Acts 10; Galatians 2:11; and St. John 21:20-22].
Some Catholics have been taught that the “fact” that Jesus
appeared to St. Peter first following His resurrection is proof that Jesus
had designated St. Peter to be the rock upon which He would build His
church. This teaching,
however, like so many others, is based on false tradition.
As recorded in St. Matthew, “... Mary Magdalene ...” was the
first to see the resurrected Jesus [St. Matthew 28:1-10].
St. Mark’s gospel confirms this [St. Mark 16:1-9].
St. Luke records in his gospel account that the resurrected Jesus
first appeared to Mary Magdalene [St. Luke 24:1-10].
And finally, St. John, the “beloved apostle,” confirms that it
was first to Mary Magdalene that Jesus appeared [St. John 20:1-17]. Thus, all four gospels recorded in the Roman Catholic Bible
confirm that following His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, not to St. Peter!
The
Catholic Church also uses St. John 21:15-17 to argue that Jesus placed St.
Peter as head of The Church. The
rationale provided is that the last one Jesus talked with one-on-one prior
to His ascension was St. Peter. Of
course, we do not know if St. Peter was the last one Jesus spoke
with one-on-one but St. Peter is certainly the last one the bible records
Jesus talking with in such a manner.
According to Rome’s interpretation, Jesus confirmed to St. Peter
three times that he was to be head of The Church.
Presented below are the relevant verses from the Roman Catholic
Bible:
“When,
therefore, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son
of John, dost thou love me more than these do?’
He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.’
He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
He said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, dost thou love
me?’ He said to him,
‘Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.’
He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
A third time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John,
dost thou love me?’ Peter
was grieved because he said to him for the third time, ‘Dost thou love
me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, thou knowest all things, thou
knowest that I love thee.’ He
said to him, “Feed my sheep.’”
[St. John 21:15-17]
First,
it should be noted that nowhere in this passage does Jesus indicate that
He is placing St. Peter in charge of The Church.
Rather, this passage is known to biblical scholars as “the
restoration of Peter.” The
second thing to note in the above citation is that Jesus refers to Simon
as the son of John. Jesus
knew Jonas was Simon’s father and always referred to him as the “son
of Jonas.” However, in the
above citation, as well as in St. John 1:42, the Vulgate incorrectly
refers to Simon as the son of John. This is one of the errors in the revised Vulgate inserted by
Pope Sixtus V which was not caught during its hurried correction by
Gregory XIV (see Chapter One). However,
the St. Matthew 16:17 text correctly identifies Simon as the son of Jonas.
The error does not occur in the King James or Greek bibles.
St.
Peter had denied Jesus as Lord three times.
Moreover, St. Peter boldly told Jesus that even if the others
denied Him, he would not. He
would be willing to die for Him! Jesus
asks “Simon” three times if he loves Him.
Jesus had called him Peter or Cephas, meaning stone, prior to the
night He was betrayed. In
this instance, however, Jesus calls Peter by his formal name, Simon,
rather than by his nickname, Peter, which Jesus had given him.
Also, it is important to understand that in Greek there are three
words translated “love” in the bible.
First, there is agapao, which means unconditional love in a
moral sense. This is the word used in St. John 3:16, “For God so loved
the world ….” The second
is eros, which means physical love, as between a married man and
woman. The third word
translated as “love” is phileo, which means a fondness or
liking, more akin to brotherly love.
Some men feel uncomfortable using the word love, agapao.
St. Peter was no exception. If
the Greek is substituted back into the above verses, here is how the
conversation sounded:
“When,
therefore, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son
of John, dost thou love me more than these do?’
He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I like
thee.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
He said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, dost thou love
me?’ He said to him,
‘Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I like thee.’
He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
A third time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John,
dost thou like me?’ Peter
was grieved because he said to him for the third time, ‘Dost thou like
me?’ And he said to him,
‘Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I like thee.’
He said to him, “Feed my sheep.’” | |
