Follow
This is our third week in the series on the Bowls of Revelation. Thus far, we have covered,
The First Bowl: The Stigmata (1226 A.D. – present)
The Second Bowl: The Plague of Scurvy (1453 – late 1700s A.D.)
As we have progressed through the Seals, the Trumpets and Bowls of Revelation, we notice that there are aids to interpretation provided within the text, aids that assist in the identification of each Seal, Trumpet and Bowl. It is our conviction that each Seal, Trumpet and Bowl is sufficiently described in Revelation that it is possible to identify each particular one particularly. Whereas there have been interpretations in the past that identify the Trumpets generally as a series of calamities, we believe each calamity can be identified. The same is true of each Seal and each Bowl, and even the fractions matter (i.e., 1/3 of the trees (Revelation 8:7), 1/4 of the earth (Revelation 6:8), etc…).
There are also referential aids that help us from one Seal to the next, and one Trumpet to the next. Seven Trumpets are given to Seven Angels before the Seventh Seal is even complete (Revelation 8:1-7), indicating that the Trumpets soon follow the Seals. According to our timeline, the Seventh Seal is broken in 358 A.D., and the First Trumpet blows the following year, in 359 A.D.. The First Trumpet mentions “trees” and “grass” (Revelation 8:7), and we found that the Fifth Trumpet also mentions “trees” and “grass” (Revelation 9:4) and thereby both Trumpets drew us to the same geographic location.
What we find in this week’s installment on the Bowls is that the Third Trumpet helps us understand the Third Bowl, because these are the only two to refer to “rivers” and “fountains of waters.” At the sounding of the Third Trumpet, a star called Wormwood poisons “the rivers” and “the fountains of waters.” As we explained in the Third Trumpet, this was a reference to the corruption of the Scriptures in the Vulgate, Jerome’s Latin translation. It was by the Vulgate that “many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter” (Revelation 8:11), for “Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land” (Jeremiah 23:15).
In the Latin Vulgate, instead of “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” Jerome gave us “Do penance (poenitentiam agite): for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (see Matthew 3:2), and “they preached men should do penance” (Mark 6:12). (See also Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:3,5, 16:30, 17:30; Acts 2:38, 8:22, 26:20).
By the Latin Vulgate, men were taught to “worship His footstool, for it is holy” (Psalms 98:5, LV), instead of to “worship at His footstool, for He is holy” (Psalms 99:5, KJV).
It was the Latin Vulgate that taught that “she” (Mary) crushed the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), rather than He (Jesus).
Instead of having Christians “declared righteous” in justification, Jerome’s rendering in the Latin was justificare, or “to make righteous.”
The Gospel message was not completely destroyed by this translation, but it was sufficiently blurred that many men died from the false gospel Jerome translated into it. The Latin Vulgate had men entering the kingdom of God by “doing penance” and being “made holy,” instead of through repentance and by believing. By the Vulgate, the glorious gospel of justification by faith alone was veiled to many for more than a thousand years.
The “rivers and fountains” that were made bitter by Wormwood are the Scriptures themselves, which on their own are refreshing rivers (Psalm 1:3) and fountains of life (Jeremiah 2:8-13) to those who drink them. Wormwood had made the rivers and fountains bitter at the blowing of the Third Trumpet, but something much, much worse occurs in the Third Bowl: the “rivers and fountains of waters … became blood” (Revelation 16:4).
As we have seen in the previous Seals, Trumpets and Bowls, blood is the herald of death. At the breaking of the Sixth Seal, the moon “became as blood” (Revelation 6:12), and many men died in Nicomedia. At the blowing of the Third Trumpet, “the third part of the sea became blood” (Revelation 8:8), and many men drowned in the Egyptian tsunami. When the Second Bowl is poured out upon the sea, it becomes “as the blood of a dead man,” and millions of men died of Scurvy. In the Third Bowl, what causes death is that instead of being made bitter, the Word of God is replaced entirely, as the bishops of Rome elect to hew for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water, and elevate the word of a the pope above the Word of God.
The Third Bowl: Papal Infallibility (Vatican I, 1870 A.D.)
When the First Vatican Council convened in its fourth session on July 18, 1870, the primary objective was to promulgate a decree on the infallibility of the pope. This has been often misunderstood by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. “Papal infallibility” does not mean the pope never sins, and it does not mean that the pope never says anything incorrect or untrue. If, for example, the pope writes down his grocery list incorrectly, or drives through a toll booth without paying, it does not compromise “papal infallibility.” All it is intended to mean is that when the pope speaks ex cathedra—literally, “from the chair”—which is to say, in his office as pope, as the shepherd of the church, as the teacher of all the faithful, he is incapable of defining error as normative for Christian belief. The exact wording from the council was,
“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” (Vatican Council I, Session 4, Pastor Æternus, Chapter IV)
That language about infallibility being a “tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith” suggests that Catholics had always believed this to be true, and that the Vatican council was merely formalizing a doctrine already received and long believed by the faithful. But that is not true. Until the definition in 1870, many Roman Catholics knew very well that the Pope was not infallible. In fact, in the 1854 version of Keenan’s well respected and widely circulated Controversial Catechism; or Protestantism Refuted, and Catholicism Established, the very notion of papal infallibility was tersely rejected as a “Protestant invention” because “no decision of his [the pope] can oblige under pain of heresy”:
-
Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
- Keenan, and many Roman Catholics with him, recognized that for the pope to claim to be infallible was itself a grievous error—so grievous in fact that the very idea of it must have originated from Rome’s enemies!
- In a later version (1896), after the Vatican Council had confirmed papal infallibility, Keenan explained how it was possible for a Catholic catechism vehemently to deny, and then as passionately to affirm, such a foundational doctrine of the church:
-
Q. But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also formerly impugned by this very Catechism. (Controversial Catechism, Edition, Edinburgh, 1846, p. 117)
-
A. Yes, but they did so under the usual reservation—”in so far as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions”—thus implicitly accepting the dogma; had they been prepared to maintain their own opinion contumaciously in such case they would have been Catholics only in name.
- In an even later version (1899), “Revised and corrected, conformably to the decrees of [Vatican I],” Keenan acknowledged that Papal Infallibility was now, and always had been, a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church:
-
Q. What dogma was defined in this Council [Vatican I]?
A. The dogma of Papal Infallibility; that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, is possessed of that infallibility with which our Redeemer endowed the church.
Our point in highlighting Keenan’s changes on what is alleged to be a foundational dogma of Roman Catholicism is that even to a staunch defender of Rome, the very idea of papal infallibility was offensive to plain reason, contrary to Scripture and foreign to church history.
However, if we were to dwell overlong on Rome’s historical inconsistencies (and they are many), we would miss something much more subtle and much more damning within the definition of papal infallibility. Notice in the final sentence the description of infallible papal statements:
“…and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”
The grievous error here is seen when we examine how Rome views God’s written Word vis-à-vis how Rome views the “infallible” proclamations of a pope.
We hold that God’s Word, by its very nature, is self-attesting and needs no external stamp of authenticity. The Westminster Confession states this explicitly:
“The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be believed, because it is the word of God.” (Chapter 1, paragraph 4)
It is God’s Word because it is God’s Word. When Moses asks the Lord, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” (Exodus 3:13), the Lord establishes that His Word is to be taken on its own authority, and not by the consent of another:
“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:14)
When the Lord instructed Moses on what he should say to Pharaoh, He instructed that the Word of God is self-attesting and needs no external stamp of authenticity:
“And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD…” (Exodus 4:22)
When Moses and Aaron met with Pharaoh, they did not appeal to a Church Council or to an infallible authority to authenticate God’s Word. They simply stated “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go…” (Exodus 5:1). Pharaoh immediately demanded authentication:
“And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?” (Exodus 5:2)
Notably, Moses and Aaron ignored his request and restated the demand:
“And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go…” (Exodus 5:3)
God’s Word was to believed and obeyed because it was the Word of God, and the Word of God was to be believed and obeyed. Period. There is no external consent or conciliar authenticity required.
But not so in Rome.
In Rome, God’s Word is to be believed, not because God says so, but on the authority of Rome herself. The Roman church claims to have established infallibly the Canon of the Scriptures on April 8, 1546 at 4th Session of the Council of Trent. By this means, God’s Word had to be authenticated by the church in order for it to be believed, essentially changing “I AM THAT I AM” into “ROME SAYS THAT I AM.” Pharaoh therefore is not to obey God because “Thus saith the LORD,” but rather because “Rome saith that thus saith the LORD.” God’s Word in Rome is subject to “the consent of the Church.”
Francis de Sales, one of Rome’s most famous saints and apologists, made this argument in his book, The Protestant Violation of the Holy Scripture:
“The Council of Trent gives these books as sacred, divine and canonical … The same books were received at the Council of Florence, and long before that at the third Council of Carthage about twelve hundred years” (Chapter III).
Essentially, Francis argues that the Scripture is received by the consent of the church, and he ridicules the Reformers because they do not accept that the Bible is “by the common consent of the Church,” or “through the medium of of the Church”:
” ‘We know,’ say they [the Reformers], ‘these books to be canonical, not so much by the common consent and accord of the Church‘ … they hold it in no account at all [that] these have been unanimously received by the whole Catholic Church; and the Councils of Carthage, in Trullo, Florence, assure us thereof. … We [Rome] do not deny, to speak clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through the medium of the Church.” (Chapter V)
The Reformers believed that God’s Word was self-attesting, and did not require the consent of the church. But Rome held otherwise. The Word of God, saith Francis, is given by the consent of the church, on the authority of the church, through the medium of the church.
But not so with the word of the pope. Papal statements were of a different, higher, order altogether.
The bishops who assembled at Vatican Council I determined that ex cathedra papal statements required no such external authentication. Infallible statements of the Pope were presumed to be self-attesting, and were irreformable in and of themselves:
“definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV)
We underline that last clause for emphasis, because Rome substantiates it by an appeal to the Synod of Quedlinburg, where it was said, “it is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon what it has judged” (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV, n22). The language used to justify Papal Infallibility could easily have been used by Moses and Aaron to explain why Pharaoh must let them go, without demanding to know “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice?” But Rome uses such language to justify the “irreformable” word of the pope.
When Vatican I codified the dogma of papal infallibility, the fountain and rivers of water that refresh His saints and nourish His people—the Scriptures—were relegated to a distant second place behind the words of a pope. According to Vatican I, the words of the Scripture were not to be believed because of Who said them, but because of the consent of the Church—whereas the words of the Pope were to be believed solely because of who said them, and not from the consent of the Church. The pope’s words were to be held as self-attesting, requiring no authentication, but God’s words were not.
Thus, when the third angel poured out his Bowl upon the rivers and fountains of water, he knew that this time it would be different than the Third Trumpet. When the Third Trumpet sounded, the rivers and fountains were merely made bitter through Jerome’s corrupted Vulgate “and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter” (Revelation 8:11). This time, the Word of God would be forfeited altogether, and the Roman Catholic religion would be given blood to drink in its place:
“And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.” (Revelation 16:4-7)
After well over 1,200 years of Rome persecuting and killing the saints of God, burning the Scriptures and condemning the Gospel, God gave them as punishment what they wanted most—a formal, self-congratulatory, but false and fleeting realization of a satanic ambition consistent with the source of their spiritual authority (Revelation 13:2). It was the canonical equivalent of, “Yea, hath God said? … Ye shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:1-4). Ever since the beginning, the Serpent has tried to tempt the saints of God into relegating His Word to second place behind the words of Satan, and Rome had finally made it a matter of canon law. Roman Catholicism has claimed since 1870 that the dogma of papal infallibility is a blessing, but in truth it has proven to be a curse and a punishment from God.
Later we will examine just what a curse Papal “Infallibility” has turned out to be for Rome. However, next week we shall continue with the Fourth Bowl, when the fourth angel pours out his Bowl on the sun, “and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire” (Revelation 16:8).
Tim, if the Pope claims infalibilty when he speaks from his chair ex cathedra, and his claim to infalibility is succesion to the Apostles (peter), does this not give credit that what the Apostles wrote, scripture, is the infallible word of God before any authority claimed the need to stamp it such. IOW the Pope’s claim for infaibility comes from the infaibility Peter enjoyed writing God breathed infallible scripture. Deducing one’s fallibility from someone gives creedence to the infallible act of wrting scrpture and negates your right to judge as such. Rome’s backword reasoning.
That should read deducing one’s infallibilty from……
To continue, my claim to Peter’s succesion and infallibility would be no different. Someone outside the Apostolic once delivered infallible deposit claiming the power to that infallibility and the ability interpret what is already infallible is false on its face. It would be like me as a bebop jazz musician claiming the infallible ability to interpret those black bebop musicians in the 40’who created that music. By virtue of being outside that one special time they were creating this music severly diminishes my claim. A crude eample, but applicable nonetheless. There is only one we should trust to infallibly interpret the word of God, the Spirit who teaches us all things and they are true 1 John 2:27. Yes we listen to our teachers, but in the end the Word and the Spirit are infallible.
Tim,
Here is a counter to your argument on the bowl judgments (also the reformers typically called the vial judgments). This is coming from the Pre-mill camp, but interesting.
I guess your interpretations will be compared with the Hollywood version promoted by the Jesuits and Evangelicals.
————
http://leftbehind.wikia.com/wiki/Bowl_Judgments
The only Left Behind encyclopedia on the web that anyone can edit, since our original founding on Monday, September 25, 2006.
Left Behind by Tim LaHaye and Jarry B. Jenkins is a fictional Christian book series that describes an apocalyptic, end-of-the-world story in accordance with Biblical prophecy as interpreted from a Christian pretribulation, premillenial, dispensationalist End Times eschatological point of view.
The Bowl Judgments (also called the Vial Judgments in the King James Version), as mentioned in Revelation chapter 16, took place within the last 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation in the Left Behind books and mostly affected those who have taken the mark of the beast and have worshipped his image.
——-
The first Bowl Judgment was painful sores that appeared on those who have taken the mark of loyalty and worshipped Carpathia’s image. This happened around the time of “Desecration” and was shortly lifted prior to the air and land strike ordered by Carpathia upon those fleeing to Petra.
The second Bowl Judgment turned all the seas into blood, causing all marine life in the waters to perish and affecting even the movement of ships on the sea. This happened in “Desecration” and lasted until “The Remnant”.
The third Bowl Judgment turned all the fresh water springs into blood, making water undrinkable to those who have taken the mark of loyalty and worshipped Carpathia’s image, causing deaths among the loyalists through dehydration. Those who had the seal of God on their foreheads, however, were able to get clean water from the bloody springs. This lasted for about a year or so in “The Remnant”.
The fourth Bowl Judgment caused the sun to be scorching hot to those who have taken the mark of loyalty and worshipped Carpathia’s image. This also resulted in the polar ice caps melting, causing tsunamis that wash rotting sea animal carcasses further inland. Those with the seal of God only experienced higher-than-normal temperatures but were immune to the destructive force of the heat. This lasted for about a year or so in “The Remnant”.
The fifth Bowl Judgment blanketed New Babylon in thick darkness, causing those who have taken the mark of loyalty and worshipped Carpathia’s image to be blinded and have painful sores from which there is no relief. Those with the seal of God had limited visibility, like that of a room lit by a low-powered chandelier. This lasted for about a year or so until New Babylon was destroyed in “Armageddon”.
The sixth Bowl Judgment dried up the Euphrates River in order for “the kings of the east” to bring their armies to Armageddon for the battle against Jesus Christ. It also caused Satan, Nicolae, and Leon to spew forth froglike spirits into three bodies that resembled Carpathia that would perform miracles to bring the armies of the world to Armageddon. This took place in “Armageddon”
The seventh Bowl Judgment took place during Jesus’ glorious appearing, where there was not only a major earthquake that leveled all the mountains of the continents except for Jerusalem (which was elevated), but also 50-pound hailstones fell upon the Unity Army, squashing them. Prior to this taking place, a voice from heaven said, “It is done”.
This is interesting…
“The Gospel message was not completely destroyed by this translation, but it was sufficiently blurred that many men died from the false gospel Jerome translated into it. The Latin Vulgate had men entering the kingdom of God by “doing penance” and being “made holy,” instead of through repentance and by believing. By the Vulgate, the glorious gospel of justification by faith alone was veiled to many for more than a thousand years.”
and:
“In the Third Bowl, what causes death is that instead of being made bitter, the Word of God is replaced entirely, as the bishops of Rome elect to hew for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water, and elevate the word of a the pope above the Word of God.”
This says it all to me….what Rome is really after here:
“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith,…, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion…”
This is just incredible…talk about double minded:
“In an even later version (1899), “Revised and corrected, conformably to the decrees of [Vatican I],” Keenan acknowledged that Papal Infallibility was now, and always had been, a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church”
Excellent point here:
“God’s Word was to believed and obeyed because it was the Word of God, and the Word of God was to be believed and obeyed. Period. There is no external consent or conciliar authenticity required.”
Wow, this is powerful and clearly demonstrates Satanic power.
“When Vatican I codified the dogma of papal infallibility, the fountain and rivers of water that refresh His saints and nourish His people—the Scriptures—were relegated to a distant second place behind the words of a pope. According to Vatican I, the words of the Scripture were not to be believed because of Who said them, but because of the consent of the Church—whereas the words of the Pope were to be believed solely because of who said them, and not from the consent of the Church. The pope’s words were to be held as self-attesting, requiring no authentication, but God’s words were not.”
Indeed, this summarizes it well.
“It was the canonical equivalent of, “Yea, hath God said? … Ye shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:1-4).”
Tim, this is excellent. Think of the enormity of mistranslating dikaiou to justificare, and repentance to penance? Works instead of justification. The Pope usurping “to the law and to the testimony.” They forget one word, didnt. The church that Jesus Christ didnt build.
Tim–
You said: “In the Third Bowl, what causes death is that instead of being made bitter, the Word of God is replaced entirely, as the bishops of Rome elect to hew for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water, and elevate the word of a the pope above the Word of God.”
This question is for only Tim to answer, please.
Is any of this actually true, or is this just conjecture on your part?
Bob,
I’ll bite. This is true.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “This is true.”
So you know for a fact that the Third Bowl is a direct reference to the elevation of the Papacy above the Word of God by the declaration of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. What is your documented proof?
Bob,
The documented proof is what I have been providing here. I will summarize my thoughts here:
1) I know for a fact that the archnemesis of the the Church would rise shortly after the apostolic era (2 Thessalonians 2)
2) I know for a fact that the Roman Empire was prophesied by Daniel to be divided into 13 territories (Daniel 7) and that the archnemesis of the church would take 3 of the 13 territories because he “was more stout than his fellows” (Daniel 7:20). See my analysis at A See of One.
3) I know for a fact that when the archnemesis was to rise, he would introduce idols, forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that were given to be enjoyed. Of these things we were duly warned by the Apostles. See my thoughts on this at The Rise of Roman Catholicism.
4) I know for a fact that the things spoken of in Revelation “must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1)
5) I know for a fact that when the archnemesis rises, the whole world shall wonder after him (Revelation 13:3)
6) I know for a fact that the archnemesis was to be attended by a false prophet that could work miracles, even to make the fire of heaven to come down to earth in the sight of men (Revelation 13:13).
7) I know for a fact that the false prophet would instruct men to erect an image to the beast, and that image would come to life and be able to speak (Revelation 13:14-15)
8) I know for a fact that the archnemesis would have a name, and the number of the name would equal 666. (See One Kingdom Too Late.)
9) I know for a fact that the men who worship the image of the beast would be given a weeping sore (Revelation 16:2). (see Leaving San Francisco)
10) I know for a fact that the Seven Seals were complete by 358 A.D.
11) I know for a fact that at the blowing of the First Trumpet, everything between the Tigris and the Euphrates would burn (Revelation 7:7). This happened in 359 A.D.
12) I know for a fact that that he blowing of the Second Trumpet, 1/3 of the sea would be struck, and 1/3 of the people in the sea would be killed and 1/3 of the ships would be destroyed (Revelation 7:8-9). This happened in 365 A.D.
13) I know for a fact that at the blowing of the Fourth Trumpet, the sun, the moon and the stars would all be dimmed by 1/3. (Revelation 7:12) This happened from 535 – 546 A.D..
14) I know for a fact that the Third Trumpet would take place between the 2nd and 4th, and that a star that is like a lamp and called Wormwood would poison the fountains and waters, and that Wormwood is like a two-edged sword (Proverbs 5:4), that the Word of God is like a lamp (Psalms 119:105), and that God feeds people Wormwood and the water of gall as a punishment when they abandon His precepts and go after idols (Jeremiah 9:15, 23:15), and that when people go into idolatry and error, the Lord gives them “statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” (Ezekiel 20:25), and that rivers and fountains are therefore a reference to the Word of God. In other words, the Third Trumpet is a poisoning of the Word of God, and many men died because of the damage done to the Word of God when Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate—something that took place between 365 and 535 A.D.. Starting in 382, to be exact.
15) I know for a fact that the Third Bowl of judgment also refers to rivers and fountains, as did the Third Bowl, and that these are the only two among all the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls to do so.
16) I know for a fact that God gave men Wormwood to drink in the Third Trumpet, but that he gave them blood to drink in the Third Bowl.
17) I know for a fact that the First Bowl began in 1224 A.D., that the Second Bowl took place beginning in 1453 A.D., and that the Fourth Bowl took place last century, and that the Third Trumpet refers to rivers and fountains and takes place between the Second and Fourth.
18) I know for a fact that at Vatican I, Roman Catholicism confirmed that the Pope’s word is self-attesting, not by the consent of the Church, elevating his words above the Word of God which, according to Rome is given by the consent of the Church.
19) I know for a fact that the Papacy is that archnemesis of the Church, who claimed three of the 13 dioceses of the divided Roman empire as A See of One at the same time that Rome adopted Jerome’s extreme views on ascetism and marital and clerical celibacy, that the apparitions of Mary are the False Prophet, that the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast, and that the attendant Eucharistic miracles, apparitions and their miracles, the stigmata, papal infallibility, the Latin Vulgate, are all curses from God on the Beast and his followers, and that in their blindness, Roman Catholics receive them all as blessings from Him.
20) And therefore, I know for a fact that the Third Bowl is a direct reference to the elevation of the Papacy above the Word of God by the declaration of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in the 1st Vatican Council in 1870.
I also know that what I am proposing (namely that the great falling away took place at the end of the 4th century, and that the Rise of Roman Catholicism was that great falling away, and that the Papacy—Apparition—Eucharist triad is that of which we were warned in Revelation 13) has never been proposed before, and that I am largely alone in this.
Be assured that I have absolutely no expectation that this will be received or believed by anyone. Nevertheless, I believe it is true.
Stay tuned. It gets much worse.
Thanks,
Tim
I believe every word of it. Its amazing that Catholics will believe with implicit faith, assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, Mary as Queen of heaven with NO evidence, but they will quetion this most documented and biblically supported view. Amazing!
TIM–
You said: ” I know for a fact” basically 20 times.
And then you said: “Be assured that I have absolutely no expectation that this will be received or believed by anyone. Nevertheless, I believe it is true.”
Believing something is true and knowing as a fact are two different things. Example:
“I believe it will rain in Paducah, Texas, at 10:38 am on Thursday, October 23, 2014.”
is much different than:
“I know for a fact it will rain in Paducah, Texas, at 10:38 am on Thursday, October 23, 2014.”
So which is it? You know it as a fact or you believe it to be true? It makes a difference to me to see whether you are a man of your word or just blowing smoke. Being a student of Bible prophecy, I have read a lot of this stuff, and when it comes down to scrutiny, there seems to be flaws in everyone’s theories.
For instance, the Catholic Church’s dogma concerning contraception and abortion hardly classifies them in the category of “forbidding marriage”. How do you think the members of the Catholic Church got to be so huge–conversions? Have you ever been to a Catholic wedding? Of course you have. If I am not mistaken, you come from a Catholic family. In fact, I could be pretty certain that your mother and father were married in the Catholic Church if you were baptized Catholic. And did you know there are even Catholic priests that are married? That hardly qualifies as “forbidden”.
So tell me, do you “know for a fact” or just “strongly believe” ? I need to know whether or not to take your words with a grain of salt.
Bob,
Since “belief” is the conviction that an asserted fact is true (i.e., I believe it is a fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again), when I say I believe these things to be true, I am saying they are facts. The evidence for them is the same source I use for the fact of Jesus’ resurrection—God’s Word. I would not say “I strongly believe Jesus rose from the dead, but I cannot call it a fact.” I believe it is factual that He rose from the dead.
I don’t separate facts from belief, because facts are what you believe to be true. I also don’t mind if people tell me my facts are wrong. In the mean-time, I am asserting them as facts.
In any case, I am aware that Roman Catholics are allowed to marry.
Paul said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5), and “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2).
Rome says, “All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate ‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.’ ” (Catechism, 1579).
Paul says ministers of the gospel are free to marry and ought to be married. Rome says they are not free to marry, and ought not marry. Paul says ministers of the gospel ought to be chosen from among married, family men. Rome says they ought to be chosen from among single celibate men who have no plans to marry.
Thus, Rome has forbidden marriage to those to whom God grants the liberty to marry. That counts as “forbidding.”
You are free to take all this with a grain of salt, of course.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
I wanted to follow up on your comment:
Do you understand that I am not predicting anything? I am not saying that I know for a fact that in the future such-and-such a pope will be antichrist. I am referring to past events. That’s why I am not sure I understand your example here. Saying “I know for a fact that the Roman Empire will be divided 13 ways,” is not the same as saying “I know for a fact that the Roman Empire was divided 13 ways.” The way your example is couched above, you are comparing my analysis of history as if I was claiming to see the future.
The Roman Empire was divided 13 ways. The final form of the 13-way division took place around 380 A.D., the latter part of the 4th century. Daniel predicted a division of the Roman Empire, and that prophecy has historically been interpreted as foretelling a 10-way division, and 3 of the ten are uprooted by antichrist. But that is a misreading of Daniel. And yes, I am claiming that Daniel has been misread by everyone on this for 1900 years, because if Daniel was only aware of 10 horns and 3 were uprooted, then the ten toes of Daniel 2, and the 10 horns of Revelation 12, 13 and 17 make no sense—there should only have been 7. Ten horns in those chapters only make sense if Daniel was aware of 13 horns, three of which were uprooted to make room for antichrist, leaving 10 so he could come up among 10 horns as Daniel saw in chapter 7 (verse 8). Thus, Daniel was aware of 13 horns, and a 13-way division of Rome.
That 13-way division was toward the end of the 4th century at about the same time that veneration of martyrs, Mary’s perpetual virginity, papal primacy, veneration of images, veneration of relics, intercession of Mary and the rest of the saints, the title Pontifex Maximus, etc… were being introduced to the church, along with mandatory clerical celibacy and the ascetism popularized by Jerome. And, incidentally, about the time Rome first claimed the unity of the three Petrine Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome—the three metropolitan centers of the Dioceses of Italy, Egypt and the East, of the divided Roman Empire. Those were the three “horns” Rome claimed as A See of One. Essentially, what the world calls the “Roman Catholic Church” today is really just the late 4th century apostasy that was predicted by Daniel and the Apostles.
What follows after the apostasy is the necessary consequence of Antichrist’s rise, including the persecution of the saints, the worship of an image, the assistance of a false prophet and the wonders he works, as well as punishments to be doled out upon the beast, his false prophet and their followers who worship the image.
I stand by this as factual. But I am not predicting rain in Paducah next week. I’m stating that it is a fact of history that what many people today regard as the historical expression of the Christian faith (i.e., Roman Catholicism) is actually the greatest deception ever pulled off on God’s earth, and it is exactly what the Apostles and Prophets foretold.
In any case, I stand by what I said as factual. I also stand by what I said—that I do not expect anyone actually to believe this, but I believe that it is true, which is to say, factual.
For emphasis, I want you to know that what I wrote above in my 2nd paragraph was not an oversight or a misstatement: “I am claiming that Daniel has been misread by everyone on this for 1900 years.” I get the significance of that statement. I stand by it.
I have heard everything from “messiah complex,” “holier than thou,” “you must think you’re really special to get this revelation from God,” to “you are certifiably insane to think you are the only person in the history of the world to figure this out,” etc… None of it bothers me. 🙂
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I believe. Help thou my unbelief. I’ve only begun reading your posts. I came out of dispensationalist futurism programming nearly 3 yrs ago. I have since studied church history, read the “Westminster Confession of Faith”, and believe fully, as you state, that Roman Catholicism is the archnemesis of our Lord Jesus & His church. I’m convinced they atre antichrist. I’m just trying to understand more fully and am certain i will have many more questions as i continue to read your very informative posts but i have just this one at this present time: “..many men died…. when Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate”. Are you speaking of spiritual death, because Jesus said “my words are spirit”, or was there an actual great physical calamity in that time from 365 to 535 that you referred to? Thank you , JG
Thanks JG. Yes, I believe the Trumpet is a reference to a spiritual death through the errors Jerome translated into the Latin Vulgate which became the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation 8:11 says “…and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.” As the waters in this Trumpet, “the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters,” is a reference to the Word of God (e.g., Psalms 1:3), and it was made bitter by the “lamp” called “wormwood” which is as bitter “two-edged sword” (Proverbs 5:4). “Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land” (Jeremiah 23:15). This is what God does to people who wander after idols, as Rome certainly did. Not universally fatal, but to those who believe Jerome’s rendering, “do penance, for the kingdom of God is at hand,” or a man is “made righteous” instead of “declared righteous” in justification, it is deadly.
When we get to the Vials or Bowls of Judgment in Revelation 16, the Third Bowl is poured out on “the rivers and fountains of waters” and they become blood (Revelation 16:4). This time, universally fatal, again referring to spiritual death. When you get to the Bowls of Judgment, you’ll see how these two (the Third Trumpet and the Third Bowl) are related.
Thanks for writing,
Tim
You say that you are largely alone in many of your conclusions. But the fact is, that even if you are 100%
wrong, who do you think the Lord will have more respect for? Someone like you, or the couch potato who spends his time waiting for the next celebrity to pick their nose so they can read all about it in “The Inquirer”.
So carry on.
Hi Bob, you asked on Jason’s site for Reformed opinions on whether Jason was elect. I didnt know if you wanted a number of answers from different Reformed but in case you did I would give you my view. Since Im not allowed to post there I thought I would answer here if your interested. Jason has documented that even while he was a Reformed Pastor, he would sneak off to the Roman church to worship it’s Eucharist. I dont believe a person can worship a man made idol of the true God, scripture clearly forbids this. Roman Catholicism is one giant system of idol worship. And since Jason does not worship God on His terms, in Spirit and Truth thru faith alone, I do not think he is a Christian. I think he went out from us because he was never of us. Of course only God knows a man’s soul but I thought you deserved an answer since it seems some of the Reformed avoided yyour question. God bless K
Tim, in revelation 13:8 it says all who dwell on the earth worship him, everyone whose name is not written in the book of life of the Lamd who has been slain. Can you tell me how this is not saying that all who submit to the Pope and his system are not definitavely not saved? It seems this verse is saying that. K
Kevin,
Since Revelation 21:8 has the “fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death,” and yet these are all violations of the Law which all men break at some point or in some fashion, then Revelation 21:8 must refer to the unrepentant—not everyone who has ever lied or murdered, etc…. Otherwise, nobody would be in heaven.
In Revelation 13:9, immediately after saying everyone whose name is not written in the book of life will worship him, John writes, “If any man have an ear, let him hear.” If you examine how this is used in Revelation, and in fact throughout scriptures, such a statement is a call to repent based on what was just said, i.e.,
See also, Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22)
“He that hath ears, let him hear,” is a call to repent based on the warnings and admonitions that preceded it.
I hope that helps. Let me know if it doesn’t.
Tim
Tim, I must tell you I know I post allot on here, but I have been a big supporter of your site telling everyone I know about it. For awhile now you just dont interact with my questions on here but you seem to have plenty time to post lengthy responses on Jason’s site. It seems to me that the people who read your articles and support your ministry deserve your primary effort. I know you cant answer evrything, and I know I post allot, but you have time for the people on Jason’s site, and answering one question of mine once in awhile seems reasonable.
Tim, yes I agree with all that. My point really was to ask if you would agree with me that that verse tells us those who dont repent but submit to the Pope arent written in the book of life. The reason I ask you this is to go one step further and say those who see reunification with Rome as a goal under some compromise, or those that believe Catholics who are willingly under the submission of the Pope in some sense might be saved, it would seem to me ignore this verse which is telling us in no sense can that be a legit church, and those who submit arent written in the book of life. Obviously only God knows who is saved, but those believers in that church must leave that comunion im
Immediately. But maybe im stating the obvious. How can so many of our so called Evangelical leaders damage the Reformation by seeking gospel union with antichrist? Can this naivity exist among men who supposedly know the scriptures?
I have a similar concern. If Rome is the antichrist, and the Holy Spirit is given by Christ to lead us into all truth (John 16:13), why do so many professing evangelicals want to get over the Protestant-Catholic divide so we can get on with the task of evangelizing the world?
If we join up with Rome, there is simply no evangel left with which to evangelize.
I’ve got a post coming up in a few weeks on how allegedly Reformed Protestants are using Roman Catholic mystics and their teachings, including Purgatory, as reading and preaching material for their flock. Very sad.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, ” if we join up with Rome there is simply no evangel left with which to evangelize.” Exactly. I contribute this dangerous condition in Evangelicalism to three things. Seminary grads more interested when they come out into the ministry in carrer promotion than preaching the gospel, law, and the great doctrines of the Reformation. 2. The value of relationships at the expense of truth in current culture. And the preocupation with ecumenical efforts to Christianize an unbelieving culture thru fighting a few sins, homosexualty, abortion, etc. At the expense of preaching the gospel. Paul said it is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners. We are taught to submit togovernment. Jesus did. The great commision didnt involve Christianizing Istitutions. Paul came to preach the gospel. Protestants and Catholics find their connection by trying to make morality palpable to the natural man. Rome tried to make the gospel more palpable to the natural man thru philosophy and where did that lead , to a false gospel. The gospel is supernatural and should be our sole focus. And if this is the case seeking approval from Roman scholarship will mean little. My ex friend Debbie once told me all her Catholic friends were laughing at me and my attempt to evangelize her and her family. It is only then did I know im doing God’s work. As you said in one post, one must be willing to give up the idol of esteem and significance and become a fool for Christ. Because where we are weak, He is strong. We have to be willing to stand on a hill. I feel you have done that Tim. There can be no room for any infiltration of the dreggs of Romanism among Pastors flocks. Eric W and I were talking about how sometimes it is difficult for Reformed to shake the effects of Rome. They still feel like they did someth I ng wrong by walking away. When in reality we attained Christian freedom offered in the gospel. Romaine said without merit, mystycism, and inherent righteouness their lie falls. Graven Bread is a stark distinction between Christ and His gospel and the antithesis(antichrist). I had a Catholic friend last weak read your book and now he is a believer and a Calvanist. And the angels in heaven are singing over one soul. One at a time. K
Thanks, Kevin,
I am glad that Graven Bread has reached another one of Christ’s sheep with the Gospel.
Thanks for letting me know.
Tim
Tim, also you said ” If Rome is antichrist and the Holy Spirit is given to us to lead us in all truth………. Even though Protestants have the Holy Spirit to lead them in truth, we ard told to meditate on His word day and night. Robert once said learning God’s truth is hard work. When one combines the utter failure of the Evangelical church to catechize and the distractions of materialism and technology in the lives of believers, we see a great apathy set in. MacArthur once said when commenting on Protestants acceptance of Romanism that the ignorance in the Evangelical church is only matched by their lack of courage. They dont know and they arent up for the sacrifice of the fight. You dont know how many people who are busy with their lives tell me they could care less about the plight of Catholics. Thats the mentality we must prayvGod will change. In the end Tim one question needs to be c asked by each Christian. Are we willing to risk those relationships for the truth, because the truth will offend Catholics.
Check out JI Packer’s intro to Luther’s Bondage of The Will that he translated with Johnston.
Arminianism is in principle a works righteousness, i.e. I chose Christ because of my free (unregenerated) will as compared to those other sinners who don’t. And if evangelicalism is largely arminian, consequently it has no problem making common cause with Rome to solve “problems”.
That not to mention anabaptistism is ahistorical. It’s all about piety/experience. ‘ You believe in Jesus and go to a Mormon church. Cool. We can fellowship.’
Nyet.
BobS ya!
” It is our conviction that each seal, Trumpet and Bowl is sufficiently described in Revelation that it is pssible to identify each particular one particurlarly.” More than one can say about the assumption of Mary, since nothing in scrpture exist on that infallible doctrine, or should I say fallible.
Tim,
Do you know for a fact that no papal decree before 1870 was infallible? The same Pope decreed the Immaculate Conception a dogma 16 years prior to being “infallible”, huh?
Do you know for a fact Jerome was 100% wrong? How did the Jews like Philo for example translate Gen 3:15 ( Remember, Jerome was influenced by the rabbis who mentored him. )
Do you know for a fact the Catholic Church forbids marriage? The clergy can’t marry, but who is required to become a member of the clergy?
By the way, when Moses and Aaron went up against Pharoah with God’s Word, was it the written word? No? Then what are you talking about?
Tim, I think Bob is on to your slight of hand.
Jim,
I know for a fact that “papal infallibility” was mocked as a protestant invention by defenders of Rome until 1870, and that no papal decree invoked infallibility until after 1870.
I have never alleged that Jerome was 100% wrong. I merely said that he mistranslated significant portions of the text. If you read Jewish commentary on Jerome’s alleged “familiarity” with Hebrew, you will find that the Jews consider him rather inept.
I know for a fact that the Catholic Church forbids single men who become priests to marry. That is unbiblical.
When Moses and Aaron went up against Pharaoh, it was before the Bible was written. Even Moses had not put quill to parchment yet. My point is that God’s Word was self-attesting, and Moses and Aaron offered no further argument except to restate God’s command when Pharaoh demanded external authentication. When Moses came down off the mountain with the Word of God written on two tablets, not one Israelite demanded a third tablet identifying the first two tablets as the canon of His revelation. It was accepted as the Word of God because it was the Word of God. It needs no council. In Rome, God’s word needs the consent of a council, but the Pope’s does not. Who does that place as the preeminent source of revelation? God Who requires the authentication of the church, or the Pope who does not?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, this is a great exchange. As Horton says churches dont connect us to God by joining them. Jesus comes to us in the gospel thru the power of the Spirit. No church owns God. The Word is sufficient withour any need for exrternal physical human institution.
Bob, do you believe that you are a Methodist or know for a fact? Remember we are Protestants. So quit shooting your soldiers, unless you really got an RC uniform on under there, which is what I’ve always said all along. God bless
KEVIN–
Glad to see your back in full regalia. You haven’t miss a beat.
Nighty-night, Pumpkin. Sleep tight. XXX..O!
Bob, you are defending a church who instituted Bishops ( Priests) to not marry so they could confiscate their property and possessions in Italy. Leaving families destitute in the streets. There were so many children out of wedlock in Italian towns that the old joke was a child would call the Priest uncle. The Catholic church forbid marriage among their clergy and stripped all Priests of their property, belongings, leaving their family in the streets. Spurgeon once said ” call yourself a Priest sir, I dare say one would take the name. When I consider all the Villainies and treachery that has happened under a false Priesthood, I would rather a man looked at me in the streets and called me the devil than call me a Priest.” Have you studied RC history. It makes Hitler look like a saint.
TIM–
You said: “Since “belief” is the conviction that an asserted fact is true (i.e., I believe it is a fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again), when I say I believe these things to be true, I am saying they are facts.”
Ok. I’m thinking you may have said that wrong. Just because you believe these things to be true, they are facts? So you are infallible? I didn’t think any Presbyterian would ever admit to that.
Bob,
I don’t recall saying they were facts because I believe them to be true. I said I believe them to be true because they are facts.
Thanks,
Tim
I just showed you how you said it in the direct quote above my response. And I said you may have said it wrong. Do you even read my response at all?
Anyway, you have stated “as a fact” that the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility IS the Third Bowl judgement. You say you believe it as though it was as certain as the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, because the Word of God says so. Show me the chapter and verse in Revelation where it says the Roman Catholic Church is the anti-Christ or the Beast or the false prophet. I would like to read that verse or verses so that I may read it with my own eyes. Otherwise, I must conclude that you have subjected your interpretation into the text to make it say what it really does not say.
Now be honest. Are your conclusions only your opinion (conjecture), or do you have documented factual proof of what you say that can be authenticated?
Bob,
God’s Word – the whole counsel of God – includes all necessary inferences which can be logically deduced from Scripture.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
I said: “Show me the chapter and verse in Revelation where it says the Roman Catholic Church is the anti-Christ or the Beast or the false prophet.”
Instead of showing me concrete evidence from the Bible or any other source, you gave me this response:
“God’s Word – the whole counsel of God – includes all necessary inferences which can be logically deduced from Scripture.”
The key word there is “inferences”.
in·fer·ence
ˈinf(ə)rəns/ noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
synonyms: deduction, conclusion, reasoning, conjecture, speculation, guess, presumption, assumption, supposition, reckoning, extrapolation
Why didn’t you admit this in the first place when I asked you? Well, I figgered as much. In all these words you have spoken, I have gleaned all I need to know about your literary tactics.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Bob,
Inference is a valid logical method of deduction. Some inferences are invalid, making them conjecture. However, an inference is not inherently invalid, and therefore an inference is not inherently subjective and conjectural.
Do I understand from your comments that you do not believe it is possible to identify Antichrist?
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, are you serious man? Attack a man’s character and his motives. You have a hard head. Do you ask every Catholic Apologist if they have documented proof for their views formed thru their study of scripture. He told you he believes that his exegesis is factual based on scripture. Your a hypocrite because you submit to papal interprtations as if they are infalible. I’ve never seen you one time question the apostate Magisterium you submit to, yet you . He already told you you can make your own conclusions. Dont shoot the messenger because you dont like the message. Just stick with your cooperation gospel. When you read salvation is a free gift you read that as if it is by works.
Tim, as I said in my email to you Catholics when confronted with their idols get hit in the nerve. Why? Because idolatry runs deep. And the worst idol is their church. Whats amazing to me is they can blindly believe the phony doctrine of the assumption which has no biblical support, simply because there idol tells them, yet all the biblical support you have provided is just your opinion. Love is blind and idolatry is blinded! Not for one minute do I think their disdain for me has to do with my behavior( although sinful at times), but spiritual war, darkness hates light. Thanks for shining God’s light on the darkness. Your reward will be great in heaven.
Bob, you are an idiot. Have you read any of his articles. He just summarized his whole exegesis of scripture and history for you and you want him to claim infalibility. No interpreter of scripture is infallible including the Magisreium you submit to. You have no faith Bob, thats why your searching for Rome and you trust your works. No faith dude, none.
Tim, Bob are you Debbie. She always stormed off from here mad at Tim and said thanks but no thanks? Hmmm
Hey, Kev
You are so provokable, Sweetie. That is quite a hair trigger you’ve got there.
Get some rest, Sugar. You’ll be a new man in the morning.
Bob, your teflon man, just deflect and attack. To cool for school. You got it all figured out, the rest is just a game.
Kevin,
You call Bob an idiot and a hypocrite.
Over on Green Baggins you call me a snake charmer and accuse me saying the complete, 100% opposite of what I actually said on increase/merit ( to Vincent. )
Such nastiness and misrepresentation of other people will not win you any friends, young man.
Keep endorsing Tim’s crackpot theories. Someday people will read Tim’s books and shake their head in disbelief. His theories and predictions are dumber than the Witness’s.
( Correction: nobody is ever going to read Tim’s hogwash books but you. They are the ravings of a lunatic. )
( I see you have private e-mail correspondence with Tim. Hmmmm? Is that where you two plan your strategy before attacking CCC together? Or are you just engaging in a bit of egospeak to tell us how you and Tim are tight and have chats we lesser bloggers are not privy too? I am so jealous of what you two have going. I wish I could get in on it. )
HA! You guys slay me!
Jim,
I have made no predictions. Nor do I plan on making any.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, put on your scapular, that makes more sense?
It’s on. I would be caught dead without it.
Tim ( or call screener Kevin who filters all of Tim’s mail for him )
Ellen G. White, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsay, David Koresh, the Schwarmerei, you, Tim Kauffman, etc. etc.the list goes on and on of whackos who thought they had cracked the code of Revelation. ( And to think, Luther thought this book didn’t even belong in the Bible as it is so Catholic. )
For sure, you have your own spin as does every other nut job.
But so what?
I am coming out with a book on the Apocalypse too. I figure you and Kevin will be the beast and the Whore. Walt can be the Dragon? ( He will be a red plaid dragon like the Loch Ness Monster ).
I haven’t figured it all out yet but it is going to be doozie.
I have told you before Tim, your blog is an outhouse. And Kevin is the crazy rat who lives under it.
You know, I don’t love to needle Kevin because he is so dumb. No. That would be cruel. I love to needle him because he is so dumb and MEAN.
Meanness is something I have zero tolerance for.
Jim, you wrote,
Agreed. There is a long list of people who have attempted to “crack the code.” Perhaps they are all whackos, and perhaps I am a whacko, too. There was never a code, though. Only assumptions. Once those assumptions are dropped, the Text literally speaks for itself. There is no “code.” In any case, if I am a whacko, you have no more to fear from me than from the rest of them.
Indeed. What I say should therefore be of no consequence to you. Nevertheless, you are welcome to participate in the discussion.
Yes, you have. I take no offense, Jim. I have already conceded that this blog is self-discrediting without any help from you. I understand that the position I am putting forward is—on its own—sufficient to discredit the blog, and its author. I accept and understand that. Nevertheless, we shall continue with our discussion of the Bowls of Judgment.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
your motives are not of God.
Jim, you may impute to me whatever motives you wish.
Tim
Jim said ” or call screener Kevin who filters all of Tim’s mail for him.” Jim, as far as I’m concerned you can keep saying all this nonsense. It really doesn’t bother me anymore. The Reformers had it right. When Rome said a sacrament offered merit instead of grace the whole game changed. This really is the gospel. Its either all by grace or its not. Its either a gift or its not. And in Rome its not. Therefore it isn’t the gospel. The rest of this is all shenanigans. And I’m very sorry that I participated. Please accept my apology. K
TIM–
You said: “Do I understand from your comments that you do not believe it is possible to identify Antichrist?”
I do know that the Anti-Christ denies that Christ has come in the flesh. The apostle John told us that. Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church denies the Incarnation? Because if you are, then you are mistaken. If anything, they claim to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. And If you say they don’t deny the Incarnation, then YOU have misidentified the Anti-Christ.
You also said to Jim: “I understand that the position I am putting forward is—on its own—sufficient to discredit the blog, and its author.”
I am glad that you and I agree on this point. It’s just a theory.
I would have added Jack Van Impe to Jim’s list.
Bob, you wrote,
Yes, and Jesus told us it is possible honor God with one’s lips, and in one’s heart to deny Him:
Thus, it is possible for a man to affirm the incarnation with his lips, but in his heart to deny it.
Yes, I am. (See Removing Jesus for more information).
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Bob:Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church denies the Incarnation?
Tim: Yes, I am. (See Removing Jesus for more information).
And after reading your article cited above, I come to the same conclusion. It just reinforces what I have gleaned about you from your literary tactics. It’s a shame that your use your good talent on deception.
Bob, here is what Walt, who is a former Roman Catholic wrote to Tim after reading Removing Jesus. ” Your commentary is so incredible and factual that I don’t know why it is so difficult for anyone to understand the Papacy is the Antichrist. Could it be more clear in what you just wrote for those who are ignorant of scripture… Here is a former Roman Catholic that doesn’t think its deception, but incredibly factual. He drew a different conclusion. One I share. God bless
Bob,
Do you understand that it is possible to honor God with the lips, but deny Him in practice?
Do you understand that it is possible to affirm the incarnation with the lips, but deny it in practice?
If the former is possible, why isn’t the latter?
Roman Catholicism, as a religion, is a material denial of the incarnation.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, Thessalonians says that antichrist puts himself up in the church as God. There is only one church office that has claimed the titles of God, and thats the Pope. He calls himself Holy Father, a name reserved only for the Father in heaven. Scripture says let no man be called father, they’re all called Father. He calls himself head of the church. Scripture says Christ is thevhead of His church. And he calls himself vicar, a name reserved for the Holy Spirit. The usurpation of the Trinity by the Roman church and its Papacy as an extension of incarnation and atonement is a denial of Christ’s incarnation. And as many great theologian have said, those who dont see this are under a grand delusion.
Bob, you claim to be a Methodist from Texas. Why do you defend the Catholic church with such fervor? Something isnt right. Have you ever participated in a Catholic Mass? Thx
KEVIN–
Your ignorance is showing so badly on what you know about the Catholics, it’s on the verge of silliness. Really, you should relax and do some real study on what they actually believe and not what some Catholic haters write.
Bob, with all due respect, as a Methodist you are completly ignorant of the Catholic church. Not me. If your going to make that claim dont you think you shoul be specific. The Roman church sees itself as the extension of the incarnation and the atonement in the act of the church. It attempts to usurp from Christ His uniquely finished work. Churches arent extensions of the incarnation, and churches dont connect us to God by joining them. Christ meets us in the gospel thru the work of the Spirit. No church owns God. Jesus accomplished eternal redemtion and incorporates us into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. The church is the recepient of grace and not the provider. The Spiritvbrings fiducia to the heart where and how He chooses. God has control of the mind and heart, not the church. Rome substitutes itself for the historical body of Christ by collapsing the head into the body. The Reformers rightly identified where Rome destroyed the ancient understanding of a sacrament. When Rome offered merit in the sacrament insread of grace, they perverted the gospel. I have always told you that you have no idea what your church teaches. It is not I that is ignorant of Catholic teaching, but you who is unwilling to understand it.
Bob, just one more thing before I retire for awhile from here I want you to think about. The Roman Catholic church can’t rent Christ’s humanity from His deity. Think about that. See ya
Kevin said, “and churches dont connect us to God by joining them”
Ah, this just made the penny drop for me in terms of ALL the protestant churches I have been part of over the last 40 years.
There really is a mentality amongst protestants that joining the local church connects you to God, rather than the other way around i.e. one of the fruits of being “joined” to God is that you will seek the fellowship of believers in a local church.
I never could quite articulate the issue before.
Thx very much Kevin for your contributions to this blog. They are helping build up one fearful saint as he walks through the wilderness of this life.
Tim, why would you ever say that this site is self discrediting? Why would your position discredit this blog. You do have a problem with the idol of esteem. Your position and site is credited by the work of God. You dont need to apologize because people dismiss it. They have to dismiss it. And you should be used to it. Because if they didnt dismiss it so easily their souls would be confronted with its consequences. Just my opinion. I have directed dozens of people here because God has uniquely gifted and prepared you for this, at this time. “But God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise” I hope you dont forget that. Im taking a haiatus again. I will be pointing every Catholic to this site. K
Kevin,
I say this site is “self-discrediting” because I have been willing to say things out loud that most people consider ridiculous and off the reservation. To some people that is sufficient to discredit the blog—the fact that it proposes something different. To others the fact that I do not choose from one of the hundreds of extant theories on Daniel is sufficient to discredit the blog. I have no problem with that.
Perhaps. I do not seek or desire anyone’s approval here. I may have missed your point.
I don’t.
I am.
Thank you.
Tim
Bob, The Reformers believed that when Rome excomunicated them from the Rman Catholic church Rome had really excomunicated itself from the catholic church of Christ. Roman Catholic is an oximmoron. Because Catholic means universal and Roman is specific.
Tim wrote:
“I also know that what I am proposing (namely that the great falling away took place at the end of the 4th century, and that the Rise of Roman Catholicism was that great falling away, and that the Papacy—Apparition—Eucharist triad is that of which we were warned in Revelation 13) has never been proposed before, and that I am largely alone in this.”
This is the most interesting distinction…
This split between the “true church” and the “Roman Catholic Church” is an interesting division…could be more important than the “great schism” with the Orthodox.
If this split is the KEY split with the true church, and the Scriptures themselves vs. the false church, Antichrist and the false Scriptures…that would be better than the much advertised Great Schism.
Only need to trace where this true church went, and where did the Scriptures go from here to give it credibility.
Tim, am I correct by understanding that God has always marked out His church even as the Roman Catholic apostasy raised its ugly head 4th century? So I have always understood that the truse church has always separated itself from that system. Also Tim would you agree that Rome rents His humanity from Diety?
TIM–
I’m kinda with Walt on this, where was the true church after the great falling away of the 4th century??? Where is the documentation to support them?
Bob, where was the true church you ask. Where it has always been. The catholic church is made up of all true believers in everywhere and of al time. The true church has always separated itself from that system. Tim has documented well the radical shift in the 4th century. Before that the catholic church was pretty much void of those false doctrines. And after the God preserved His church, and still does to this day. Its made up of all born again believers from the beginning of time. Rome ‘s visible church isn’t that church, but it is apostate.
Bob,
The true church is well documented throughout history, and because it arose first, and then was oppressed by the rising Roman antichrist, it is known for its apostolicity prior to the rise of the religion of Romanism, and then for its protestantism thereafter.
The church fathers testify to the presence of a Church in Britain which was founded either by the apostles or by their immediate successors.
Clement said that Paul preached “to the extreme limit of the west” before dying in Rome (Clement, To the Corinthians, V).
Tertullian said that in his day the gospel had already reached to the British Isles, beyond even what Rome had claimed as part of the empire: “and the haunts of the Britons—inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ, and of the Sarmatians, and Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and of many remote nations, and of provinces and islands many, to us unknown, and which we can scarce enumerate?” (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 7)
Eusebius said that the British Isles had been reached either by the Apostles themselves or by the seventy: “How is it possible to think that they were all in agreement to lie, being twelve in number especially chosen, and seventy besides, whom He is said to have sent two and two before His face into every place and country into which He Himself would come? …B ut to preach to all the Name of Jesus, to teach about His marvellous deeds in country and town, that some of them should take possession of the Roman Empire, and the Queen of Cities itself, and others the Persian, others the Armenian, that others should go to the Parthian race, and yet others to the Scythian, that some already should have reached the very ends of the world, should have reached the land of the Indians, and some have crossed the Ocean and reached the Isles of Britain, all this I for my part will not admit to be the work of mere men.” (Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book III, chapter 5)
In addition to these, Jerome and Theodoret have Paul going from ocean to ocean and preaching in the isles of the ocean to the west, and Chrysostom said that the British Isles had received the Word.
Thus, when the Romish monk, Augustine, was sent by Gregory the Great to evangelize Britain, he found upon his arrival that there was already a thriving Christian church in Wales, under their bishop Dionoth in Bangor, and further that the Christian Church in England had no interest whatsoever in submitting to the church of Rome. Christianity arrived in England long before Roman Catholicism did, which is why the very first true church of England from apostolic days was proto-protestant in that the evil of Rome was recognized and rejected from the first day Romanism ever arrived on the shores of the lovely islands. As noted here, it appears that the Claudia of 2 Timothy 4:21 was the daughter of Caractacus who went back to England with the Gospel she had received from Paul.
Additionally, as I have noted before, Jovinianus appears to me to be a proto-protestant as well, and he had many bishops with him when he was excommunicated by Pope Siricius in 389 A.D.: “Jovinian, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Prontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingeniosus, who were discovered to be the promoters of the new heresy and blasphemy, should be condemned by the Divine sentence and our judgment, and remain in perpetual exclusion from the Church.” (Pope Siricius to the Church of Milan, 389 A.D.) As I read Jerome’s vitrolic letters against Jovinianus, I see a protestant in sights, not a heretic. Ambrose complained that the Gallican bishops had rejected Rome’s yoke of marital celibacy, and there are church fathers who responded with indignation that there were many other bishops who were of similar mind, and that the Gallican bishops were constantly engaged in divisions with those who opted to align with Rome.
In other words, early church history is the story of an apostolic Church that had reached as far as England, and which was from the latter part of the 4th century perturbed by a Roman antichrist, which was—according to its nature—claiming supremacy from its inception, and was rejected by the Church of Christ from day one.
More on this later, but there is no lack of evidence for the Church of Christ existing even under the persecution of antichrist, as the prophets foresaw that it would. Unfortunately, because Roman Catholics read history through the lens of their religion, they cannot imagine that something claiming to be the church could possibly not be the church. Thus, they are quite easily deceived by Rome’s pretensions.
Tim
Tim,
That summary is incredible and excellent. Thank you so much for spending time to lay it out. That is the break in history that will turn minds toward Christ…as they all believe that the true Roman Catholic Church is an unbroken chain in history from Peter and the Apostles through history to our Papal priest today. I’ve spent so many hours arguing with my late dad and others who held to this view, and nobody could show this break with Rome, or was we in the historical post millennial view was the real “falling away”. This certainly could be the period.
With your views on Jerome’s translation taking up by the hands of Rome to use it as its “source text” for its Latin vulgate, I can see any break in this with the received text going into Iona as a critical distinction.
“THE Scots are missing from the roll of barbarous nations that descended from the North in the fifth century upon the Roman empire and overturned it. Historians have been careful to enumerate the other races that left their homes in the deserts of Scythia at this eventful epoch, and journeyed southward on a mission of transcendent consequence to the world, though unknown to themselves. The Huns, the Vandals, the Lombards, and other nationalities whose existence was unknown till the gates of the North opened and suddenly revealed them to the world, all figure in that terrible drama. But the Scots have been passed over in silence. Yet the truth is that the Scoti ought to have stood at the head of this roll, inasmuch as they formed the van of the procession, and had an important part to play in the great revolution that followed the advent of these races. ”
http://www.reformation.org/vol2ch2.html
Where was the true church of God during these Dark Ages?
“These groupings of papyrus were called a “codex” (plural: “codices”). The oldest copies of the New Testament known to exist today are: The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum Library in London, and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican. They date back to approximately the 300’s AD. In 315 AD, Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 Books which we recognize today as the canon of New Testament scripture.
In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.
On the Scottish Island of Iona, in 563 AD, a man named Columba started a Bible College. For the next 700 years, this was the source of much of the non-Catholic, evangelical Bible teaching through those centuries of the Dark and Middle Ages. The students of this college were called “Culdees”, which means “certain stranger”. The Culdees were a secret society, and the remnant of the true Christian faith was kept alive by these men during the many centuries that led up to the Protestant Reformation.”
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html
Filling in this gap will be an interesting task.
Thanks, Walt. One of the shortcomings of modern scholarship is that its history begins with the Protestant Reformation, and everything before that is presumed to be Roman Catholic. Because of this, Roman Catholicism can falsely claim apostolicity, and the Protestants concede the point before any conversation even begins. Thus, more than 1200 years of darkness and error are lumped in with 300 years of light, and all 1500 are labeled “the Roman Catholic years.” All 1500 years of that is then read through a Roman Catholic lens, even by Protestants. Thus, even the first 300 years are presumed to include transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration, and the Reformers came along and set things back to rights, and that is when Christian history begins. That false version of history is one of the most powerful weapons in Rome’s arsenal, and Protestants are constantly helping Romanists train their sites on us!
Thus, otherwise well intentioned men concede that Roman Catholicism is Christianity with a sinful past which can be covered up with a few apologies and ecumenical dialogue so we can all get on with the business of establishing the unity for which Christ prayed. Many, many reformed Protestants have followed antichrist by stumbling at that point.
But a closer look shows that neither Ignatius, nor Justin, nor even Augustine and Gelasius believed in transubstantiation and the early church fathers rejected baptismal regeneration. Closer inspection shows that clerical celibacy, prayers to saints and martyrs, worship of relics and images, and Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness, and Rome’s claim to be an Apostolic See all came later (late 4th century), and eucharistic adoration came even later than that (11th century).
Further, when a church that has more right to the claim of actual apostolicity than Rome will ever be able to fabricate, is found in Britain from the earliest days of Christianity, and that church is shocked (shocked!) to find that there is a Bishop in Rome claiming supremacy and demanding submission, it is clear that the first 300 years of the Christian Church were very far from Roman Catholic and that Rome does not own history, and does not own the Early Church. She is an interloper, and an imposter and a deceiver, and the timing of her birth is a matter of Biblical prophecy and well-supported by the historical record.
Protestants would do well to recognize this and simply call Rome what she is and what she has always been from her illegitimate birth: Antichrist. Our conversations with Roman Catholics would be much more direct and much more fruitful.
Thanks,
Tim
Assertions, assertions, assertions.
How was this hoax foisted on the world without so much as a whimper?
Tim said, “Thus, otherwise well intentioned men concede that Roman Catholicism is Christianity with a sinful past which can be covered up with a few apologies and ecumenical dialogue so we can all get on with the business of establishing the unity for which Christ prayed. Many, many reformed Protestants have followed antichrist by stumbling at that point.”
Thx again Tim. This is exactly one of the stumbling blocks I believed. Realising the beginning of the papal, antichristian thinking in the latter 4th century has been a great help. And understanding that the papal Antichrist was never the church of Jesus Christ has been truly liberating. History is now making sense when interpreted in the light of Scripture as you have clearly shown. Thx so much.
Tim,
And what do we know of the cult of those early British Christians? Were they Sola Scriptura, Sola Fides folks?
No? I didn’t think so.
KEV–
When you grow up in a small town in West Texas like I have, naturally you will have lots of Catholic friends. And none of them believe what you say they believe. Honestly, Kevin, I defend Catholics because they are my friends. They are not bread worshipping satanic idolaters as you claim they are. Who taught you all of that stuff anyway? When you spout that disrespectful vitriol about my friends, it strikes at me too. It also gives me some insight into who Kevin Failoni really is, deep down inside his heart. Because what is on a man’s lips is what is on his heart.
Kev, hon, get some good rest when you retire from here. I truly believe that you may gain some fresh perspective if you look into what Catholics really believe instead of the nonsense that you have been taught. Maybe you will have a change of heart.
Nighty-night, Pumpkin.
Bob, said ” I defend Catholics because they are my friends. They are not bread worshiping satanic idolators like you claim. ” well I love my Catholic friends by telling them the truth and warn them that they have submitted to antichrist and its idols. You are naive Bob and blinded by the idols of Rome. Just the clear reading of Christ being the only mediator between man and God in scripture and Rome saying Mary is the mediator of all graces should be enough to convince you, but it doesnt. How can you judge what’s really inside my heart. Was Paul Revere evil to the English by warning the Americans the British are coming. You just love Rome, thats why you judge my heart. You hold on tight to your idols. If you dont understand anything I wrote Bob, then you you have a Pollyanish view of the Roman Catholic church. If you cant see the perversion of true Christian religion it is, then you havent studied scripture. I wont have a change of heart. I believe Roman is apostate, a false Christianity, and no matter how you feel about your friends they are destined to perish in that false system. Proceed at your own risk.
Kevin,
Boy do I feel your pain brother. Just as you have been trying to wake Bob up to just how devilish we Romanists are, I have been talking my lungs out on CCC to get those sleeping Catholics to see how demonic Tim is. I too feel like Paul Revere and no one is listening.
I had a helluva time getting Jason to dump you. I had to rant and rage and embarrass him. But in the end, you hung yourself with the pedophile slur.
Tim will trip himself up too. I don’t need to keep denouncing Kenneth as a Protestant lover. Tim will eventually prove to Kenneth how wicked he is.
As for Bob, well, some Romanist will say something outrageous like, ” Christ died for all men” or “God loves everybody” and it will snap Bob out of his fog. After all, the Bible is so clear that God wants ” some men to repent and come to the truth”.
By the way, are you sure it was me who made the rope remark? I wasn’t me. I might tell you to stick a sock in your mouth, but that is it.
Bob,
You Catholic lover! Not only did you have Catholic friends, as it was Texas, I bet some of them were Mexicans!
Catholic and Mexican. I am worried the people you hang out with Bob. Next thing, you just might befriend a “mick” or worse, a “dago”!
Tim! Tim!
I have been working over time over on CCC to get that silly kid Kenneth to see how wicked you are but I am having no success.
On top of that, over on Green Baggins, Kelvin just maligned my good name. He tattled on me for my Luther Language on this blog. Worse, he said it was me who told him to get a rope and hang himself.
You know it was my amigo Mikel who said this. I would never say such a thing to someone as unbalanced as Kevin. I would not want his blood on my conscience. Besides, only you could make him strap on a suicide vest or do harm to himself.
Listen, I am gonna need you to tell kelvin to restore my good name and retract the charge. He will do it if you ask him to.
Now,I gotta get back to working on Kenneth to see how evil you are. Catch ya’ later.
Tim,
it is the next day. Kevin still hasn’t retracted his charge about the rope on green baggins.
Why? Twice you have thrown out the rope incident of how mean Catholics were to the blog crashing troll over on Jason’s. You know the facts. You know who told Kevin to get a rope and stretch his unwashed neck.
You are a stickler for being accurate in our statements on one blog when speaking about another.
You are known to give corrections. Are you going to correct Kevin for his false witness? You admonished me for false witness for my “embellishment” ( maybe ) did you not?
I actually don’t care if you do. Reed and Ron know Kevin is a fibber. I just want to see if you are as upright as you pretend. Admonish Kevin in one of your private emails so you guys can plan strategy if you want.
Whether you do or don’t is irrelevant. I am a winner either way.
Have a nice weekend with your kiddies.
Kevin,
I give you 48 hours before being shut down on GB. You know you can’t resist saying something gross. You are incapable of civil dialogue.
By the way, I am posting over on Beggars All under my secret name ( G. F. ). Come on over there and get thrown off too.
What happened? For days DeMaria and I were ruling over on Southern Baptist Open Forum. I even announced it on CCC. Weren’t you lurking? One of the moderators ( Parsonmike ) is like Tim, a Catholic hating lapses Catholic. I had to turn him over my knee and spank him hard. I thought for sure you would have weighed in. You didn’t. Why not Big Fella”? Aren’t you feeling well? Cat got your forked tongue?
And the rope comment? Will you be eating your words? Not that it matters as R and R don’t want to hear about what happens on other blogs. I just think you should fess up for fibbing.
See you over there.
PS What happened to Tim. I really raked him on CCC and he didn’t say a word, not a peep. Is everything over here on this blog?
Jim,
The last few posts of yours are sounding really desperate. You sound almost like you are loosing your mind in some sense. Are you ok or a little too much wine! 🙂
Not enuff wine Walt. I just had a jug of sangria with lunch.
Bob,
You grew up in West Texas?
I am reminded of Marty Robbins,
” Out in a town in west Texas, I fell in love with a Mexican gal…”
He was great.
Tim,
I found this note addressed to you on CCC.
“Yoohoo! Where are you?
A few days ago you laid an egg here but didn’t stick around to hatch it. You said some pretty bizarre things about the Eucharist. Then you sailed off into the sunset.
I know you lurk. Come on down and let’s talk about it.
You called the Eucharist idol worship. Okay, what’s wrong with idol worship. Isn’t idolatry condemned in the O.T.? Are you a Judaizer?
St. Paul said we can’t have fellowship at demon’s table and the Eucharist both. He obviously sees a distinction in idolatry and the Eucharist.
Don’t be afraid. We aren’t going to bite you. We only bite and gnaw on the Flesh of Christ. We aren’t cannibals.
Come on back and talk to us.”
Jim,
I’m really surprised they let Tim post on the site. I did 3 posts, and they allowed the first one and then blocked me for only asking questions in the other 2.
CCC is really a very sad site…just read what you posted above.
Who is that guy? Tell him to come over here so we can teach him a little scripture, and he can put down his eucharist for a few hours. I’m sure he is scared, as CCC blocks what they don’t want people to read, and allows what they want.
Walt,
It is funny you should mention ccc guys coming over here. Just yesterday one of them said he had lurked and decided it was just the idiot fringe of anti Catholicism and left without posting.
It is also funny that the issue of Kevin and the rope remark came up after several months. The name of the chap who made the remark was mentioned. It wasn’t my name. Yet Kevin maligned me on Green Baggins and said I was the culprit a couple of days ago and won’t retract. Tim doesn’t give Kevin a fraternal correction about his false witness about me.
Shame, shame, shame.
Jim,
Come on now. You of all people should know that while it is one thing to kick someone off a website for being abusive, it is quite another to block my two messages which were only focused on asking questions.
Your colleague can refer to me as “just the idiot fringe of anti Catholicism and left without posting” but there are a few of us asking questions, and digging into research that has not been marketed as well as other disclosures.
While you and Bob largely see the RCC as the one true universal church, and all roads lead to Rome in a good way…from my perspective this view is really extreme.
You see, I’ve read the bible over 50 times cover-to-cover in the past 15 years, and one thing I’ve learned is that throughout biblical history the majority is NEVER EVER right. In fact, we see periods of reformation in the old testament where only a small minority rises up to follow the Lord and the Scripture. They are often hated.
All the prophets faced extremely violent deaths. All the apostles were martyred except John. Have you ever read about the “Killing Times” in Scotland? Men, women and children were literally hunted down in the late 1600’s (not long ago) and murdered for not renouncing their oath they swore to the Solemn League & Covenant.
Even in the 20th century, Rome has no mercy.
“Synopsis of the book Convert…or Die by Edmond Paris (as found at openlibrary.org)–
During World War II, unnoticed by much of the world, a new nation was carved out of Yugoslavia. The “Independent State of Croatia” was to be entirely Roman Catholic. Its leaders promised to either convert or execute the non-Catholic Serbs. Over 700,000 were tortured beheaded, even buried alive, all in the name of Christ. In this well-documented book, historian Edmond Paris proves that the Roman Catholic Church must bear responsibility for this bloodbath…”
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/croatia.htm
I cannot believe the blinders Catholics where when anyone explains her history…even the modern history.
Tim is exposing the last 1500 years, largely. Just look at what has happened in the last 500 years.
Wait till Rome (and her Protestant daughters) rises her head in the near future to silence a small minority. It will not be anything different than what we see in history. Lots of bloodshed, and a history buried (or burned) to be forgotten…except by a few who dare to dig into it.
“The Counter Reformation is generally considered to have three aspects: the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and the Council of Trent. In view of the significance of the Protestant apocalyptic interpretation of history which prophetically pinpointed step by step the events covering the whole Christian era from the beginning to the end (i.e. Historicism-ed.), it seems justifiable to suggest a fourth aspect, namely the preteristic (Preterism-ed.) and futuristic (Futurism-ed.) interpretations launched by Catholic expositors as a counterattack.” – Kevin Reed, from his book review titled “The Ecclesiology of John Foxe: A book review by Kevin Reed of John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church by V. Norskov Olsen, 1973, citing Olsen on p. 47.
“… when the classic historicist position is studied, the fulfillment in the case of Islam and Revelation chapter nine is seen to be so striking and well attested that ‘even advocates of other approaches who are adamant in their rejection of the historicist system of interpretation have admitted the convincing nature of this particular identification'” – Steve Gregg, commenting on Rev. 9:1-6 in Revelation: Four Views, p. 176.
“Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Charles Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” – Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 205, 1991.
“Prophecy shows that a time is coming when the Kingdom of Christ shall triumph over all opposition and prevail in all the world. The Romish Antichrist shall be utterly destroyed. The Jews shall be converted to Christianity. The fullness of the Gentiles shall be brought in and all mankind shall possess the knowledge of the Lord. The truth in its illuminating, regenerating and sanctifying efficacy shall be felt everywhere, so that the multitudes of all nations shall serve the Lord. Knowledge, love, holiness, and peace shall reign through the abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Arts, sciences, literature, and property shall be consecrated to the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. The social institutions of men shall be regulated by gospel principles, and the nations as such shall consecrate their strength to the Lord. Oppression and tyranny shall come to an end. The nations, instead of being distracted by wars, shall be united in peace. The inhabitants of the world shall be exceedingly multiplied, and pure and undefiled religion shall exert supreme dominion over their hearts and lives so that happiness shall abound. This blessed period shall be of long duration.” – The 1901 Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
In Lectures Upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation Alexander M’Leod, a Reformed Presbyterian, defends (in 494 pages) classic historicist Reformation eschatology from the book of Revelation.
“Faber preceded M’Leod,and the latter availed himself of all the aid furnished by the former; yet till the ‘mystery of God shall be finished,’ his people will be receiving accessions of light from the ‘sure word of prophecy’ (p. 321)… I can again cordially recommend to his attention the Lectures of Doctor M’Leod, as the best exposition of those parts of the Apocalypse of which he treats, that has come under my notice'” (p. 324).
But Steele is not shy about pointing out that,
“the principal defect pervading the Lectures, and one which most readers will be disposed to view in an opposite light, appears to be, a charity too broad, a catholicity too expansive, to be easily reconciled with a consistent position among the mystic witnesses.
Their author, however, deriving much information from the learned labors of English prelates on prophecy, could not ‘find in his heart’ to exclude them from a place in the honorable roll of the witnesses. I am unable to recognize any of those who are in organic fellowship with the ‘eldest daughter of Popery,’ as entitled to rank among those who are symbolized as ‘clothed in sackcloth.’
The two positions and fellowships appear to be obviously incompatible and palpably irreconcilable. It is true that there have been and still are in the English establishment divines who are strictly evangelical;but the reigning Mediator views and treats individuals, as he views and treats the moral person with which individuals freely choose to associate; and we ought to ‘have the mind of Christ'” (I Cor. 2:16, p. 322-23).
Notwithstanding a few shortcomings, this is probably the best book available (at present) on the book of Revelation.”
ANABAPTISTS, BAPTISTS, AND THEIR STEPCHILDREN (Rev. Professor-Emeritus Dr. Francis Nigel Lee (formerly Chairman of the Departments of Church History and Systematic Theology, Queensland Presbyterian Theological College, Brisbane, Australia) 2006 improved edition
“On the one hand, I seek to show that the Anabaptists were not at all Protestants — but essentially a medley of heretical wildcat sects. On the other hand, I seek to demonstrate that they were the post-mediaeval descendants of both ancient sects and mediaeval Romanism, and also the ancestors not only of Socialism and Communism but even of many modern cults — and that they influenced especially the sacramentology also of Baptist Christians. To a lesser extent, I also seek to show that not Anti-Reformed Romanism but paedobaptistic Reformation Protestantism alone is the true daughter of both the Hebrew Older Testament and the Apostles’ Newer Testament as well as the patristic Church Universal. In particular, I would demonstrate that especially Calvinism is the true granddaughter of Biblical Christianity — of which contemporary churches need to be, and future churches yet shall become, the true great-granddaughters.”
http://www.francisnigellee.com/wp-content/uploa…ren-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf
Jim, what do you think about this statement? Does this give Tim some “reformed” liberty and biblical warrant to testify against you and others? As you know, Luther was likely (outside Calvin and Knox) the man most hated and hunted by the Romish Church and Jesuits…causing the Jesuit foundation, and the Jesuit oath used till this day.
“I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order…when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction – to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon.”
– Martin Luther
We here at Semper Reformanda will utilize this section of the web site to help combat and expose heresies that have plagued the Christian’s walk with error. The scriptures reveal error even in the church’s inception.
Jesus Himself warned:
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The apostle Peter warns of such scenarios:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
There is no denying that not every church is a true church. There are certain orthodox fundamentals that make up a church of the true living God. Many of today’s churches try and pawn themselves off as true churches. However, their doctrine and theology deny it.
http://www.semperreformanda.com/heresy/
Tim, you wrote:
“Thus, more than 1200 years of darkness and error are lumped in with 300 years of light, and all 1500 are labeled “the Roman Catholic years.” All 1500 years of that is then read through a Roman Catholic lens, even by Protestants.”
This is what I was taught going to Catholic School. There was not even a hint of anything regarding the true church vs. the false church growing up. I never was taught the distinctions between the visible (being) and the invisible (well-being) church in history. What you said above is EXACTLY what I was taught as a Roman Catholic.
They did not want to teach me anything about the reformation except the standard response (very similar to what Jim said this morning):
“Just yesterday one of them said he had lurked and decided it was just the idiot fringe of anti Catholicism and left without posting.”
My mind was trained to believe that anyone who even questioned the Papal authority, or my prayers to Mary day after day, was an anti-Catholic and should be rejected.
It was not until I realized what the RCC did to my mother that I was so angry I stepped out to “search for myself if these things were true” and opened my eyes to another set of documents. I had to know, I had no choice at that stage of my life to know.
For guys like Jim and the blind on CCC it is easy to totally ignore the reformation, and to ignore your incredible research as the fringe, but when they shut down 2 of my 3 posts over there it is clear they want nothing to challenge them. Luther did the same and was absolutely hated by Rome. Calvin as well. Knox as well. The Jesuit oath is a military call to impose as much damage as possible on this reformation period, and I’m sure there are Christians within the RCC around the world, but they are practically invisible. Only the Lord knows who are his.
I know you don’t take to heart what Jim and others say about you, but because I know well the 1200 year history of Rome and Eastern Orthodox, I am on the edge of my seat waiting to read in more detail about the faithful remnant and Scriptures where they traveled after the falling away. You have already started to weave this thread in history. It is, as you say, totally ignored…and most historians look at the reformation starting in 1380’s with Wycliff (known as the “morningstar” of the reformation), but I believe it started much earlier.
I believe it may have started when you have identified it when a few protested against Rome in the 300’s. Perhaps 1000 years BEFORE Wycliff.
Let’s wait and see. I know some friends who will be shocked as this is a period few understand, and even more ignore. Where did it all begin.
>>
>> The following request came from Jeff and Karin Trotter, missionaries with Heaven’s Family. Please read carefully, praying fully, then pass on to others who will pray. God strongly desires that we stand in the gap for our brothers and sisters and children who are suffering.
>>
>> Just got this today. I think it is was originally sent this morning, so it’s very current.
>>
>> Prayer Request from Dan and Marilyn Wilson, missionaries who are in the areas that are being attacked by ISIS are asking to be showered in prayer. ISIS has taken over the town they are in today. He said ISIS is systematically going house to house to all the Christians and asking the children to denounce Jesus. He said so far not one child has. And so far all have consequently been killed. But not the parents. The UN has withdrawn and the missionaries are on their own. They are determined to stick it out for the sake of the families – even if it means their own deaths. They are very afraid, have no idea how to even begin ministering to these families who have had seen their children martyred. Yet he says he knows God has called them for some reason to be His voice and hands at this place at this time.
>>
>> Even so, they are begging for prayers for courage to live out their vocation in such dire circumstances. And like the children, accept martyrdom if they are called to do so. These brave parents instilled such a fervent faith in their children that they chose martyrdom. Please surround them in their loss with your prayers for hope and perseverance.
>>
>> One missionary was able to talk to her brother briefly by phone. She didn’t say it, but I believe she believes it will be their last conversation. Pray for her too. She said he just kept asking her to help him know what to do and do it. She told him to tell the families we ARE praying for them and they are not alone or forgotten — no matter what. Please keep them all in your prayers.
>>
>> This came this morning…
>> Just a few minutes ago I received the following text message on my phone from Sean Malone who leads Crisis Relief International (CRI). We then spoke briefly on the phone and I assured him that we would share this urgent prayer need with all of our contacts. “We lost the city of Queragosh (Qaraqosh). It fell to ISIS and they are beheading children systematically. This is the city we have been smuggling food to. ISIS has pushed back Peshmerga (Kurdish forces) and is within 10 minutes of where our CRI team is working. Thousands more fled into the city of Erbil last night. The UN evacuated its staff in Erbil. Our team is unmoved and will stay. Prayer cover needed!” Please pray sincerely for the deliverance of the people of Northern Iraq from the terrible advancement of ISIS and its extreme Islamic goals for mass conversion or death for Christians across this region. May I plead with you not to ignore this email.
>
Jim, you wrote:
“Assertions, assertions, assertions. How was this hoax foisted on the world without so much as a whimper?”
Are you familiar with the doctrine of Satan who lives in your heart, and is roaming about the earth , and the role he plays in history?
“And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 5:7)
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1Pet.5:8)
The Scriptures teach us that Antichrist (e.g, Romish Papacy) will reign until the time when He will be crushed along with Satan.
Assertions, assertions, assertions….indeed, but if you don’t even pick up Scripture to learn for yourself, you are destined to follow that false vicar of Christ right into hell.
More than 50 million Christians have been slaughtered by the Roman Catholic Church, and the number keeps growing:
I recommend everyone watch this video for the historical facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXBj2N9fhY
Published on May 24, 2014
A Lamp in the Dark is an exciting new documentary that unfolds the fascinating “untold” history of the Bible, revealing critical information often overlooked in modern histories. Enter into a world of saints and martyrs battling against spies, assassins and wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Papal Inquisition forbade biblical translation, threatening imprisonment and death to those who disobeyed. Learn the stories of valiant warriors of the faith, such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, the ancient Waldenses, Albigenses and others who hazarded their lives for the sake of sharing the Gospel light with a world drowning in darkness.
Once the common people were able to read the Bible, the world was turned upside down through the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers subdued whole kingdoms by preaching the grace of God, and exposing the unbiblical doctrines of Rome. In response, the Vatican would launch a Counter Reformation to destroy the work of the Reformers, including the bibles they produced.
ABOUT THE PRODUCTION
This ground-breaking documentary is also filled with rich visual graphics and dramatic re-enactments of key historic events.
Included in this 3 hour DVD:
1) The history of the early Church, with the warnings from Jesus and the Apostles about “grievous wolves” and apostasy.
2) How the Inquisition began for the purpose of silencing Christians and outlawing the Bible.
3) The Bible translations of John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and finally the King James Version.
4) The Protestant Reformation and the reasons behind it.
5) Key doctrines confronted by the Reformers (i.e. Indulgences, Inspiration of Scripture, Salvation, Transubstantiation, Veneration of Mary, and Papal claims of authority).
6) The Counter Reformation which began with the founding of the Jesuit Order in 1540.
7) The Vatican’s involvement with the Critical Text and their influence over world-wide biblical translation in the 20th century.
Donations to Adullam Films at http://www.adullamfilms.com/ALampInTh…
An Adullam Films NEW RELEASES http://www.adullamfilms.com
We loudly maintain that the sacrifice of the Mass is nothing else than an impious profanation of the Lord’s Supper. This we make plain by the clear words of our Lord. For in instituting the sacred Supper, he does not enjoin us to sacrifice, but invites us to partake of the sacrifice which he himself once offered. He commands distribution to be made, and orders all alike to communicate in both symbols. And there is no obscurity in the words; Take, distribute among yourselves; drink ye all of this cup. What resemblance is there between the observance which corresponds to our Lord’s command and the Papal Mass, in which they pretend that Christ offers himself to the Father to expiate the sins of the world by the sacrifice of himself, and not only so, but also to obtain redemption for the dead – in which no invitation is given to partake, but one individual sets himself apart from the whole flock – and where, if any one comes forward to partake, the half is withheld from him?
John Calvin, Canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, with the antidote (1547) in John Calvin: tracts and letters, trans. and ed. Henry Beveridge (7 vols, Edinburgh, 1851), iii, 59.
Glenn,
He is alone in his theories because they are crackpot.
Thanks, Jim,
Perhaps I am but a fool. Perhaps I cannot even rub two thoughts together to form an idea, or two ideas together to form a hypothesis.
In any case, you mentioned that the pope had declared that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible. Which pope did this, and when did he do it?
Thanks!
Tim