. . . one is bound to end up on the floor flopping around like a demon possessed fish-out-of-water.
What happens when a false priest representing the Church of England meets a false prophet representing the church of self?
Bentley ends this spectacle repeating a word over and over again and I can’t help but wonder if he’s prophesying of what he sees in his own future.
Over the last few years, I’ve noticed a pattern among many false religions and false teachers of the Word.
Catholicism–Don’t bother reading your Bible. You can’t understand it. Let the Magisterium tell you what it means.
Mormonism–Don’t bother reading your Bible. You can’t trust it, it’s been corrupted. Just let the General Authorities tell you what it means.
Jehovah’s Witnesses–Don’t bother reading your Bible. You can’t interpret it. Just let the Watchtower tell you what it means.
Postmodernism–Don’t bother reading your Bible. Nobody can understand. No one knows what it means.
Warrenism–Don’t bother reading your Bible. Unless it’s “The Message” because that’s the only one anybody can understand. Just read your “Purpose Driven Life” and let Rick Warren tell you your purose.
Prosperity “Gospel”–Don’t bother reading your Bible. Satan won’t let you understand it. Just blindly swallow the verses we cherry-pick and take out of context.
Lying Signs and Satanic Wonders Movement–Don’t bother reading your Bible. Only Pharisees try to undertsand it. Just trust the dog-and-pony-show, I mean sleight-of-hand, I mean signs and wonders we perform on stage every night.
On the other hand, the Bible tells us that even the words of the Old Testament alone are enough to lead us into truth. “from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2nd Timothy 3:15). And we have the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus said, “He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). So we don’t need a Magistreium, or General Authorities, or a Watchtower, or lying signs and Satanic wonders to lead us into truth. By the leading of the Holy Spirit in opening His Scripture to us, He will lead us into the truth.
The following two short videos are of a Roman Catholic apologist leading a class on the defense of the Immaculate Conception. He starts off the conversation explaining his conversation with a Christian youth pastor (who evidently needs to spend less time playing games and organzing ski-trips with his youth group and more time studying the Word of God to know what he believes and why he believes it).
The speaker is interesting to listen to but my head really spun when this apologist and his class used the pure conjecture of worldly human wisdom (and very minimal Scripture) to dismiss Romans 3:23 . . . when “all” doesn’t mean “all.” He also provided us with his “most important verse in the Bible” in an attempt to justify his point.
Now things get really interesting when one student in the class named Frank brings up a great point: If Mary was sinless, then why did she die if indeed death is the wage of sin? If Mary was sinles then she would have never died.
The Catholic apologist teaching the class seemed to realize this was detrimental to his teaching so he provided the quick but incorrect reply “Mary was still human.” Allow me to remind the teacher that humans only die BECAUSE OF SIN! The teacher’s pious answer sounds humble but it fails to address the fact that if Mary knew no sin then she should not have died.
The teacher quickly moves on and just when he thinks he’s out of the woods, another student (who brought up the Romans 3:23 problem) directs the conversation back to Frank’s inquiry: If sin = death + Mary died = she must have been a sinner. Even with the valiant effort of another pupil who jumps in to help–trying to just explain the problem away with human reason–it still leaves the teacher a little perplexed. He tries to use the sinless Messiah as an example but obviously forgot that Jesus took on the sins of the world, Mary did not.
In spite of all the speculation and assertions hurling around the room (very little if any of it being Scripture) Frank didn’t give up so easily–still pressing the issue. Finally, after seeing the gaping hole in this Romish false doctrine of Immaculate Conception, the teacher decides to “shift gears.”
All in all, the two videos (6 minutes and 5 minutes respectively) are actually rather entertaining. If you’re going to watch these videos, however, be prepared to jump through some wild hoops as you follow along.
Part One:
Part Two:
Apparently when Pope Pious IX proclaimed the doctrine of Immaculate Conception in 1854, he couldn’t imagine those pesky little verses (Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23) causing so many problems.
Sola Scriptura!
Solus Christus!
This air freshener, The Patron Saint of Parking, is a parody. Unfortunately this one, The Patron Saint of Television, isn’t.
Sometimes the traditions of the Romish Church are stranger than those making air fresheners to mock it.
It doesn’t surprise me one bit now, really, that the Vatican would say that Creation and Evolution are compatible, seeing that they have just recently stated that there might be extra-terrestrial life out there.
From Times Online, 23 May 2008:
The Vatican is planning a special conference in 2009 to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking theory of evolution.
First printed in November 1859, Darwin’s evolutionary theories rocked the faith of Victorian Christians and are stoutly contested today by Creationists. The Vatican has traditionally backed a more nuanced approach. Three years ago, Cardinal Paul Poupard, the then president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said Darwin’s theory of Evolution and the Old Testament book of Genesis were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible were correctly read, saying: “The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,” explaining that the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator.”
Next year’s conference will be held in Rome and organised by Poupard’s former office, the Pontifical Council for Culture as well as by the University of Notre Dame and six pontifical universities. The event, claim its organisers, is a milestone in the rapprochement between science and the Church. They say it is time for the Church to look at Evolution again, “from a broader perspective”, explaining “appropriate consideration is needed more than ever before.”
Professor Gennaro Auletta, who is head of the Science and Philosophy faculty at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and the main conference organiser told Edward Pentin of Newsweek (Newsweek Blog): “We hope this will really be an example of how to hold an open discussion without overtones. We simply wish to dialogue between people whose mission is to understand a little more.”
Say, Cardinal, how about giving us some actual Biblical support for that statement of yours instead of making an irresponsible claim like “…if the Bible was correctly read”? Oh, silly me, I forget, only the Vatican has the “full knowledge” on how the Bible is to be interpreted, and we Protestants are just milling around in our confusion and getting it all wrong. I’ve always thought that God saw all that He made and it was very good (Genesis 1:31).
Reverend José Gabriel Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory and a scientific adviser to Pope Benedict XVI believes so!
The Vatican’s chief astronomer says there is no conflict between believing in God and in the possibility of extraterrestrial “brothers” perhaps more evolved than humans.
Funes, also went on to say such things as, “The extraterrestrial is my brother,” and “Why can’t we speak of a ‘brother extraterrestrial’? It would still be part of creation.” Funes also believes we were created billions of years ago by a big-bang.
Read the complete article here.
Back in March I published a post (with video) entitled: Trish Asks a Catholic Priest a Few Questions. Now here’s the update on that meeting.
You can also listen to a discussion at the end of this episode of Way of the Master Radio between this priest and Ray Comfort and Todd Friel.
Thank you Albert Mohler for standing up for truth in an age when so many other “Christian” leaders cower on Larry King (like in this post).
Thanks to Better Than Gold for the heads up on this delight:
Enjoy a bag of Tetzel’s Pretzels today! Unless of course you gave up salty snack foods for Lent.
HT: Tom in the Box.
What did it take for God to save us? To put it into human terms, I would say this:
Suppose I broke into your house, tied you up, and made you watch as I beat your son, killed your wife, and stole everything you owned. You call the police, they come and arrest me, and I am sentenced to die. In the meantime, I am free on bail. So, to stay your wrath, which is firmly upon me, I mow your grass, do your laundry, paint your house and take out the garbage. However, none of these “good deeds” make up for the fact that I have committed such vile offenses against you. There is nothing I can do to cover over my atrocities, and hide them from your sight. Your wrath abides upon me still.
As the day of my execution approaches, you remember your mercy. For no reason other than the fact that you have so desired in your heart, you make me an offer. In order to spare me from death, you will allow your only son to be strapped to that table, have the needles inserted in his arms, and take the penalty that I deserved. Not only that, but you will then adopt me into your family as your son. I plead with you, saying, “No! No! No! I don’t like that idea! I have a better idea! Let me do good things for you! Let me earn my pardon! Let me do enough good things that I don’t have to accept THAT offer!” You look at me and say, “Either my son dies for your crimes–or you pay for them yourself forever. Which is it?”
This is the dilemma facing every single human being who will ever walk the face of the earth. They have all committed horrific acts against the LORD of all the earth. They have walked through His creation, stolen from Him, blasphemed His name–and have rightly earned His wrath.
Everyone.
EVERY.
ONE.
The only way to avoid the eternal punishment we deserve is to accept His offer of His Son, the blood that He shed, to hide our sins from the sight of the Father. Oh, but how many? How many do not bow their knee and confess salvation is through Christ alone! They rather say, “No, God! I have a better idea! I’ll do good things for You! I’ll do such good things that You won’t have any choice but to pardon me!” And they think they are bringing Him gifts of gold, silver, and precious stones. When in fact they are bringing Him a big, stinking pile of used Kotex. Have these people not read the words of the prophet Isaiah? “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.”
Used tampons.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I feel the translators were much too kind. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy as the cloths a woman has used during her period of uncleanness. They are drenched with the stain and odor of our own uncleanness. And they are good for nothing but to be thrown into a pile and burned. And yet how many people will approach the throne of God, holding them in their hands as their most prized possession, thinking that the Lord will be pleased with such an offering. And He will say, “Get out of My sight! I can’t stand to look at you and all that waste you have brought Me! Who do you think I am that I can be bartered with such filth? Do you think I would be pleased with all your uncleanness? In fact, who are you? I don’t even know you! I never have! So be gone! Be gone! NEVER approach Me EVER AGAIN! You dirty, filthy, vile miscreant! Be burned with everlasting fire, that I never have to be reminded of you ever again!!”
Friend, if you are reading this, and you have been gathering up used menstrual cloths as an offering to God to bribe Him into letting you into His kingdom–I beg you to stop right this minute. Because what you are telling God is this–that the blood in those bloody cloths you are offering Him is better than the blood that was shed by His dear and precious Son. You cannot assuage the wrath of God with your own filthy garments. Do you think that God is under some kind of obligation to overlook your sins because you have earned enough “attaboys” and have done enough “good deeds?” How much is enough? Who decides? You? Are you the final arbiter of how much good is enough? Don’t even think for a moment that you have the keys of the kingdom of God–those are in the Hands of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who opens the door to the kingdom, for He is the Door. He opens it, and no one can shut it. But, friend, He also shuts it, and no one can open it.
You have sinned against Almighty God. The only offer there is for your pardon is to accept the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross, and to be adopted into His family as His son. No amount of mowing, laundry, painting, or any other little trinket of a deed you can offer Him will ever take away the fact that you are a sinner. Only the blood of Jesus. That’s what it took.
According to this story from the Catholic News Agency the Pope has granted indulgences to those who break the first and second Commandments. Below are excerpts from the article which explains the works based, unbiblical hoops one has to jump through to obtain forgiveness:
The first way to obtain the indulgence is to visit the following places in Lourdes between December 8, 2007 and December 8, 2008, preferably in the order suggested: (1) the parish baptistery used for the Baptism of Bernadette, (2) the Soubirous family home, known as the ‘cachot,’ (3) the Grotto of Massabielle, (4) the chapel of the hospice where Bernadette received First Communion, and on each occasion they pause for an appropriate length of time in prayer and with pious meditations, concluding with the recital of the Our Father, the Profession of Faith, … and the jubilee prayer or other Marian invocation.
If the faithful are not in Lourdes, but wish to receive the plenary indulgence, then during the week of the anniversary of the first apparition, which is the week of February 2, 2008 through February 11, 2008, and they must visit “in any church, grotto or decorous place, the blessed image of that same Virgin of Lourdes, solemnly exposed for public veneration, and before the image participate in a pious exercise of Marian devotion, or at least pause for an appropriate space of time in prayer and with pious meditations, concluding with the recital of the Our Father, the Profession of Faith, … and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
There is also a provision for those who are unable to fulfill the previous two ways of obtaining the indulgence. Those who “through sickness, old age or other legitimate reason are unable to leave their homes, may still obtain the Plenary Indulgence … if, with the soul completely removed from attachment to any form of sin and with the intention of observing, as soon as they can, the usual three conditions, on the days February 2 to 11, 2008, in their hearts they spiritually visit the above-mentioned places and recite those prayers, trustingly offering to God, through Mary, the sickness and discomforts of their lives.”
Where is all that in the Bible?
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
In the long war on the truth, the most formidable, relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. It is an apostate, corrupt, heretical, false Christianity, it is a front for the kingdom of Satan. The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ has always understood this.
– John MacArthur
(From a sermon entitled The Pope and the Papacy.)
I have posted over at my other blog (Four* Pointer) a message I gave a while back about the Virgin Mary. While she was a virtuous young woman, and one whose devotion to the Lord was admirable and one that should be imitated by all, she does not want–nor do I believe would she accept–the devotion that is given to her by Romanists. It’s kinda long, and I didn’t want to take up bandwidth here (what with five other posters).
Here is part of that post:
——————————————
Here are, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, their official positions on Mary. The Catechism is like their rules—or dogmas—and they’re laid out in paragraphs. Paragraph 969—
In other words, Jesus isn’t doing a good enough job as our one Mediator between man and God. He needs His mother to help Him. Kinda makes ya wonder why Jesus said, in Matthew 6:9, “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.” And not once does He mention invoking the name of Mary. Or any other saint, or even angels. I guess He just forgot. No, He didn’t forget. He didn’t mention it because we aren’t supposed to do it.
We are not to pray to the dead. We have one Mediator between man and God. If we think that praying to dead saints is going to help, then that means there is more than one Mediator, and God is a liar, because His word says there is only one. Well, what about bowing before statues of Jesus, or Mary? No. No. No.
The Catholic will tell you, “Well, we don’t worship those statues. We use them to remind us of…” whatever. What part of “Thou shalt not bow down to them” don’t they understand?
Yep, this is no joke. Here’s the news article that explains the whole thing.
Apparently St. Clare (who lived during the 1200’s, just a few short years before the invention of the television . . . eh, hm), is the patron saint of the boob tube. And
And for those who refuse to accept the Bible’s declaration that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between men and God, there’s even a prayer to Saint Clare.
So what’s the difference between St. Clare and the other Catholic farces like prayer pills and the St. Joseph statue? This farce was actually given legitimization by Pope Pious XII on Valentine’s Day 1958 when he declared Clare the patron saint of television.
The traditions of men are truly stranger than fiction.
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .
2 Timothy 2:5
The Roman Catholic contention is that Saint Peter was the first Pope and the author of papal succession. Romanism also considers the pope to be the “head of the church” in spite of (and in direct contradiction to) that title already belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23).
Romish tradition teaches that not only did the Apostle Peter visit Rome, but that he pastored a church in Rome, died in Rome, is buried in Rome, and St. Peter’s Basilica is standing where Peter is supposed to have been martyred and buried. The Bible never makes mention of any of these things and the word “pope” isn’t even found in the Bible.
Below I’ve posted seventeen evidences (not “traditions”) for your consideration. Some of these facts were adapted from this website but the majority of this following information came from John MacArthur’s profound sermon entitled Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System.
So, was Peter the first pope or not? Let us examine this subject with the following points.
01- The Bible never claioms that Peter was a pope, nor does it say that he was the “head of the church.” The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) takes biblical texts out of their context to support this pretext. One would think that if Peter were a pope (especially the first) that the Scriptures would certainly recognize and reflect this fact.
02- The word “pope” is not even found in Scripture. (It also never mentions the words “monk” or “rosary” either.)
03- There’s no archeological or historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.
04- The Bible gives a reason why there’s no archeological or historical evidence that peter was ever in Rome. In Romans 15:20, the Apostle Paul says that he aspired “to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation.” Had Peter been in Rome, then Paul would not have evangelized there since Paul said he didn’t want to build on another man’s foundation.
05- Paul greets a myriad of people in Romans chapter 16, yet makes absolutely no mention of Saint Peter. If Peter was the pope or “head of the church” in Rome, this would be a grievous oversight/omission on Paul’s part.
06- Paul greets ten people in Rome throughout his letter known as 2 Timothy; none of them are Peter.
07- When mentioning the pillars of the Church (not the heads as Christ is the only head of the Church), the Apostle Paul mentions Peter before John, but after James (Galatians 2:9). Is this any way for a pope to be recognized?
08- Peter was never called to preach to the Gentiles (which would have been those in Rome). Peter was entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised, the Jews. (Galatians 2:7-8).
09- There’s no mention in Scripture of Peter being the head of the Church in Rome. He wasn’t even the head of the Church in Jerusalem; James was. (Galatians 2 & Acts 15).
10- Peter never considered himself the head of the Church (i.e. the pope). In the introduction of his letter (1 Peter 1:1), he simply calls himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Notice he did not call himself the apostle, pope, or even “head of the church.” And he didn’t even refer to himself with the name “holy father” (a title ascribed to popes).
11- Peter further clarified his view of himself when he referred to himself as a “fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). He equated himself on the same level as the others he was writing his letter to.
12- Who was calling the shots? Scripture reveals that it was not Peter, the supposed “head of the Church.” He was being told what to do by the elders of the Church (Acts 8:14). Shouldn’t the “head of the Church” be the one giving instruction and direction? See additional examples of the leaders and elders of the church giving directions, not Peter, in Acts 11:22, Acts 15:22-27, Acts 21:18, and Acts 21:23-24.
13- The Apostle Paul opposed Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11) because Peter “stood condemned.” Hardly the thing for someone to do to a pope, the supposed Roman Catholic “head of the Church.”
14- Jesus called Peter “Satan,” and said that he was a stumbling block to Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23). Is this any way to talk to a pope?
15- Peter acted cowardly and denied the Lord Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). Is this any way for a pope to act?
16- The history of the early Church as accounted in the book of Acts makes absolutely no mention of Peter after chapter 15. For someone who is supposed to be the “head of the church” and the first pope, you’d think there’d be more mention of him in this inspired book of early Church history.
17- And finally, Peter was a married man (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:29-31, Luke 4:38-39 & 1 Corinthians 9:5), something a pope could not be.
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.
Colossians 2:8-10
In their observance of Easter, Roman Catholic Filipinos crucified themselves (including a 15 year old boy and an 18 year old girl) for absolutely positively no reason. There is no Biblical justification for this.
I imagine they are just taking “good works” to its logical conclusion.
If we are saved by our works, then wouldn’t the participants in this torture fest have reason to boast in spite of Ephesians 2:8-9?
Read the article by clicking here.
Every Wednesday I post the sermon of the week. After hearing this message I could barely wait till Wednesday to share this one with you.
This week’s sermon is an absolute must-hear. It is entitled Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System by John MacArthur. It is–hands down–the best message I’ve ever heard on Roman Catholicism . . . bar none.
Even if you have a minimal interest in understanding what Roman Catholicism is about, or no interest at all, I expect this sermon will change that. I also encourage those Roman Catholics who read this blog (I know you’re out there) to seriously listen to this. If you have the truth, then you have nothing to fear.
I’ll be moving this sermon into my “Top Ten” favorites.
Click on the link to listen streaming, or right click on the link and click “Save As” (Internet Explorer) or “Save Link As” (Mozilla) to save to your computer. From there you can burn this to a CD or upload it to your MP3 player.
If interested, you can read the transcript of this message here.
HT: Fish With Trish
Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti , close ally of the Pope and head of the Roman Curia’s main court–The Apostolic Penitentiary–has released a list of Roman Catholicism’s new 7 Deadly Sins:
– Polluting the environment.
– Taking drugs.
– Becoming obscenely wealthy.
– Causing social injustice.
– Causing poverty.
– Experimenting on humans.
– Genetic modifications.
Read more about these “new sins” here and here and here. For more on the deadly sin of pollution, check out this article.
Related posts from Reformation Nation:
Priorities Completely Out of Whack
Is there anything that the Catholic Church won’t put on the table that devout Catholics won’t eat up?
Introducing the St. Galvao Prayer Pill for the Catholic who still believes that praying to God through Christ alone just isn’t good enough (in spite of the Bible’s clear teaching that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man).
I wonder how the Mary worshipers devotees will take this since they still cling to the heretical couplet that “Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the gateway of God“.
Seriously, these “prayer pills” sound like something that TBN would be selling. I thought the RCC had a little more respectability than to do something like this . . . yes, I know, there was that Indulgences thing. But to quote a famous Mormon defense, “That was in the past, we don’t teach that anymore.” No siree. Now we have prayer pills!
I wait with anticipation for the next gimmick the Catholic Church will send down the pike.
Christ Alone Wyoming 