Follow
[This is the first installment of a three part series.]
This week, two “Marian” Popes are to be canonized as saints of the Roman Catholic church: Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. Both were very public about their devotion to Mary and frequented the sites of Marian apparitions. John XXIII was particularly devoted to the apparition of Mary at Lourdes, and emphatically commended “her” message to the faithful. In 1959, at the close of the 100-year anniversary celebration of the Apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, John XXIII said:
Following the pontiffs who, for a century, have recommended to Catholics that they should be attentive to the message of Lourdes, we urge you to listen with simplicity of heart and sincerity of mind to the salutary warnings of the Mother of God. (Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Miravalle, ©2008, p. 862)
John Paul II was also devoted to the apparitions of Mary, and believed that Mary of Fatima had protected him throughout his papacy. On a papal visit to Fatima on May 13, 2000, a message from John Paul II was read to the faithful gathered there:
On this solemn occasion of his visit to Fatima, His Holiness has directed me to make an announcement to you. As you know, the purpose of his visit to Fatima has been to beatify [two of the visionaries]. Nevertheless he also wishes his pilgrimage to be a renewed gesture of gratitude to Our Lady for her protection during these years of his papacy. (Announcement by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State)
In that same message, John Paul II had it announced that he would finally make public the “third secret of Fatima,” a prophecy that had been delivered to the popes from the vision of Mary through the visionary, Lucia.
But public and private teachings are not the only things the apparitions of Mary have to offer. They also perform some rather remarkable signs that ostensibly validate their divine origins. At Fatima and Lourdes there are collections of abandoned wheelchairs and crutches to testify to the number of cures that have taken place there. But there is another miracle that the apparitions perform—not nearly as often, but much more spectacular. They appear to be able to make the sun come down to earth for their followers.
On October 13, 1917, as many as 100,000 pilgrims converged on Fátima, Portugal to witness this. The vision of Mary had been appearing there for six months to three visionaries, Lúcia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto. The first visit from “Mary” occurred on May 13 and the vision asked Lúcia and her cousins to return monthly to see “her”:
“I want you to return here on the thirteenth of each month for the next six months, and at the very same hour,” the Lady said. “Later I shall tell you who I am, and what it is that I most desire…”
Then at the July 13 appearance, the apparition promised that there would be a miracle at “her” sixth visit:
“You must come here every month, and in October I will tell you who I am and what I want. I will then perform a miracle so that all may believe.”
News of this promise traveled quickly, and each month the crowd grew larger. By October 13, after an evening of heavy rain, 100,000 people gathered to see the miracle. They were not disappointed. There are many eye-witness accounts, including this one:
“The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.” — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.
John Mathias Haffert, founder of the Blue Army of Fatima, compiled eye-witness testimonies in his book, Meet the Witnesses, in which he provides details from interviews of more than 200 witnesses. A small sampling gives some idea of the terror this struck into the hearts of those present:
“The sun began to move in the sky. Everyone noticed the change in the atmosphere. There were colors, and the sun began to move in the sky. People were so frightened that they all began to run to the Church. And then suddenly, the sun seemed to plunge down upon them.”
“All I can remember is that this fireball came down upon the Earth and I knew I was about to be burned alive. And I ran, and I ran, and I ran. All I can remember is my fear. I often woke up at night, running. Running from the fire. We thought it was the end of the world. The fire of the sun was on top of us.”
Not every person present witnessed the miracle, but there were so many eye-witness accounts that it is difficult to dismiss as a hoax or as a case of mass hypnosis. Wikipedia has an entry dedicated to “the miracle of the sun” that was performed at Fatima that day, including several more eye-witness testimonies. It had been no ordinary event. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became “suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling.” Some eyewitnesses were as many as eighteen and thirty-two kilometers away from Fatima when they saw it happening.
But the miracle has not been limited to those who were present at Fatima. Pope Pius XII, who proclaimed the Assumption of Mary as dogma in 1950, claimed in his memoirs that he had personal experiences of the Miracle of the Sun on several occasions:
Pius XII’s note says that he saw the miracle in the year he was to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption, 1950, while he walked in the Vatican Gardens. He said he saw the phenomenon various times, considering it a confirmation of his plan to declare the dogma. …. Pius XII said he saw the same phenomenon “the 31st of October and Nov. 1, the day of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption, and then again Nov. 8, and after that, no more.”
Additionally, the apparitions of Mary in Heroldsbach, Germany in the late 1940s and early 1950s also performed the Miracle of the Sun. 10,000 eyewitnesses were purported to experience the miracle there on December 8, 1949.
What are Christians to think of the miracle of the sun? Should we dismiss the alleged miracle because the visions of Mary are not from God? Or, should we instead accept that the visions of Mary are from God because of the eye-witness accounts of the miracles? There is a third option that we not only suggest, but that we wholeheartedly encourage professing Christians to accept: that the visions are real, the miracle of the sun is real, and that they are demonic in their origins
We have elsewhere documented the false gospel taught by the apparitions of Mary—namely that Mary suffers in our place for our sins (she does not, Hebrews 10:12), or that God is angry at us for the sins Jesus bore for us on the cross (He is not, Isaiah 53:10), or that we need to suffer more in order to expiate the sins of ourselves and others (we do not, Hebrews 10:26), or that God is angry that the world has not sufficiently honored “His mother” (He is not, Isaiah 42:8). These teachings of the apparitions of Mary are consistent with the Roman Catholic gospel, and the visions of Mary and their attendant miracles are supposed to authenticate Rome’s gospel and prove that the Roman Catholic church is the true church of Jesus Christ.
However, because Christians reject the Roman Catholic gospel, they are largely inclined to dismiss the Miracle of the Sun, as well. We believe that is a very, very big mistake.
We noted last week that the Antichrist was expected by the Church Fathers to appear shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire. As we noted in that article, we believe that Roman Catholicism was that expected Antichrist—the Eleventh Horn of Daniel 7, and the Beast of Revelation 13. We have also noted in this article and elsewhere that the Roman Catholic popes have enjoyed a rather close relationship with the apparitions of Mary. One particular aspect of the relationship is that the Apparitions of Mary tend to pressure the Popes to proclaim new Marian dogmas—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for example. As we noted here, Taylor Marshall, a former Protestant turned Roman Catholic apologist, was excited that the apparition of Mary may have been pressuring Pope Benedict XVI to accept that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces—a title, which if bestowed on Mary by the pope, would be the culmination of Mariological doctrinal development and establish Mary in her “true and proper” place in the Roman church.
Because of this we can say that the apparitions of Mary would not be accepted by the faithful were it not for the approval bestowed on them by the Popes through the Marian dogmas, and the Popes would not have proclaimed the Marian dogmas without the influence of the apparitions. This has been noted by Roman Catholic theologians who readily acknowledge “the role which apparitions can play in dogmatic development.” They note, for example, that “the Rue du Bac [Paris apparition in 1830] stimulated the definition of the Immaculate Conception, while [the] Lourdes [apparition in 1858] seemed to confirm it” (Fr. Bertrand Buby of the International Marian Research Institute, emphasis added). In that sense, the apparitions of Mary get their approval from the Popes themselves, and the Popes’ proclamations are authenticated by the apparitions.
This gets us back to the reason we believe the apparitions of Mary and the Miracle of the Sun should be acknowledged as real by Christians—not because they are from God, but because they are of the devil, and should be recognized as such. In fact, this is what we were warned about when John recorded his visions in the Book of Revelation. In addition to the first Beast, there was a second Beast, a False Prophet that appeared peaceful like a lamb, but spoke the same demonic doctrines as the first Beast. We note, significantly, that the False Prophet has the uncanny ability to bring the fire of heaven down to earth in sight of men and in the sight of the first Beast, in order to deceive the world:
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast…” (Revelation 13:11-14).
Revelation 19:20 also speaks of the Beast, and “the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them.” These apparitions of Mary are that False Prophet, which appears kind and peaceful and good like a lamb, but teaches the same false doctrines as the Papacy, and works miracles to deceive, even to make fire come down from heaven in the sight of men and in the sight of the Pope. Christians are therefore encouraged to become familiar with the Miracle of the Sun, and to understand it as the fulfillment of John’s prophecy. The apparitions of Mary are the False Prophet, and the Papacy is the Beast. We were warned of this.
The Beast and the False Prophet will come to their end (Revelation 19:20, 20:10), but not until they have accomplished what has been given to them to accomplish. “If any man have an ear, let him hear” (Revelation 13:9).
[Part 2 will follow next week]
Mary, mediatrix of all graces. They worship the creature instead of the creator who is blessed forever Amen! Romans 1. They put Mary up in the place of our savior, they put sacramental efficacy up in the place of our savior, they put a church up in the place of our savior, they put a mere sinful man like you and me in the place of your savior, they put bread up in the place of our savior. Idol worship, the exact warning of Scripture. They will meet their just end.” For even though they knew God they honor Him not as God”
Tim, Explain to me in your opinion how Roman Catholicism is different form Mormonism? IMHO added revelation created by a false tradition, a man that speaks infallibly for God, power granted to itself by this leader and his cronies, reduce Christ to something less than God, based on good works in some way, multiple visions and accounts, preoccupation with mysticism and miracles. Fictitious divine worship. Over on Jason’s site Catholics are arguing their brains out against the sufficiency of Scripture. What Christian would reduce the sufficiency of God’s breathed word or the perfect accomplishment of Christ’s sacrifice, to ascribe the glory to man? What Christian would do that? Shouldn’t this be a clue? “They went out from us because they were never of us” Here is the bottom line for me, at their baptism they are infused with the Roman church and therefore they are under they influence of the church and worship a church. This transfer of dna is Satan’s fatal juice. The only thing that can break this is the Spirit breaking thru with the word. The veil can only be lifted by God. Are we not to snatch them out of the fire?
Well, for one, Mormonism is a deception. Roman Catholicism is the deception.
As for the need for the Word of God to be authenticated, no further authentication is needed, and none will be given. Consider the “man of God” in 1 Kings 13. The king invited him to his house, and the man of God said, “If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: For so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest” (vv 8-9).
Along came another prophet claiming that an angel had spoken to him saying the exact opposite, namely that the man of God may go “into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” But this was a lie. (v. 18).
So the man of God considered the second word as authoritative as the first, and “he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water” (v. 19).
Then the deceiving prophet received a real Word from the Lord, saying “thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee” (1 Kings 13:21).
So the man of God was killed on the road for disobeying the Word from the Lord. (v. 24)
Was that fair? Why were the first and third words authentic, but the second was not? Because the first and third were from the Lord and the second was not.
That’s all we get. His Word is to be believed because of Who said it, not because of who said He said it.
Both Mormonism and Roman Catholicism are the second prophet in 1 Kings 13, who said, “I know you heard the Word of the Lord, but He told me the exact opposite.”
The Word of God needs no other authentication, and certainly none from the Pope or his magisterium. No merits at all—that we trusted the Pope, the Church, Jesus’ mother, St. Joseph, the Church Fathers, our personal interpretation of secular history, the miracles of the apparitions or that Roman Catholics worshiped his image because of the Eucharistic Miracles—none will save from the wrath of God.
Only Jesus Himself can do that (Romans 5:9).
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, thanks, thats just a great lesson. I learned so much from it.
Me too. Thx very much Tim.
Kevin, you might enjoy taking a look at John 5:32-38: “There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true” (v. 32) … “I receive not testimony from man…” (v. 33). “I have greater witness than that of John:” (36) “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me.” (v. 37a).
And we are to receive Jesus on His witness and the witness of His Father alone? Yes, we are. Jesus goes on: “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (v. 37b). That is to say, there is not a visible head or magisterium or a manifestation of God the Father to testify to the truth about Jesus.
Yes, we are expected to believe in Jesus on His own testimony and the testimony of His Father, even though we cannot see the Father and have not heard His voice. What, then, is there to believe? The testimony of His Father is all we’ve got, or as Jesus referred to it, “the Scriptures”:
• “Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Matthew 21:42 )
• “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29)
• “But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matthew 26:54)
• “And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?” (Mark 12:24)
• “I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.” (Mark 14:49)
• “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)
• “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures…” (Luke 24:45)
• “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39 )
So, in John 5:38, after saying that the Father testifies of Jesus even though we have not heard His voice or seen His shape, he says, “And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.”
What do you suppose He meant by “His Word”? Do you think He meant we needed an audible voice and a visible head in order to know and believe the Truth? Of course not. He meant that the reason the pharisees did not receive Him is because they did not believe the Scriptures: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46)
When Jesus testifies against the Jews in Matthew 12, He uses two witnesses from Scripture (the Ninevites (12:41) and the Queen of Sheba (12:42)). When He testifies against them in Luke 4, He uses two witnesses from Scriptures (Elijah (4:25-26) and Elisha (4:27)). When they charged His disciples for breaking the Sabbath, He testified to their innocence with two witnesses from Scripture (David (12:3-4) and Moses (12:5)). Two witnesses are required to establish guilt or innocence according to the Law (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, among others).
So Jesus says, following this precept,
“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.” (John 5:32)
“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” (John 8:17-18)
Clearly, Jesus is not appealing to the voice of God at His baptism (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22) or the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), for Jesus does not appeal to the audible voice of God as His witness: “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (v. 37b). He is appealing to the Scriptures.
Just so, Peter, having heard the voice of God at the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:17-18), still directs his flock, not to more signs and visions, but to the Scriptures, which are “more sure”:
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (1 Peter 1:19-20).
We do not need to prove this any more than the man of God did in 1 Kings 13. The written word is the 1st witness, as Jesus taught, and His own testimony in person is the 2nd.
It is therefore interesting that, when Jesus rebukes the apostles for not believing (Mark 16:10-14), there had been two witnesses: 1) Mary Magdalene whom He sent directly to them Himself (His own testimony, John 20:17) and 2) the two men on the Road to Emmaus to whom He had opened the Scriptures to show that Christ had to suffer these things and then enter His glory (the Scriptures, Luke 24:26). These are the two sources Mark identifies in Mark 16:11 & 13. When the apostles did not believe either of them, Jesus rebuked them. It is true that when they found the empty tomb, “they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (John 20:9), but they no longer had that excuse after hearing from the men from the Emmaus Road. (Recall, Jesus did not say the men on the road were fools because they did not believe their eyes. He said they were fools because they were “slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,” which is to say, the Scriptures (Luke 24:25).
Thus, we have all the testimony we are going to get. Jesus, Who came in the flesh once and is now ascended to His Father in Heaven, and the Scriptures. That’s it. Since the eyewitnesses are all deceased, the Scripture is all there is left. To require more (Pope, Tradition, Magisterium, Apparitions, or yet another physical appearance by Jesus as Thomas did) is itself unbelief.
There’s no shame in Sola Scriptura, is there? Not at all!
Thanks for reading, and hang in there.
Tim
Thx so much Tim. This answer alone is a remarkable compilation of Scriptures. When they are put in a list like this the conclusion is rather obvious. This was really helpful to me.
In the end it is the Spirit working thru the Word that brings fiducia to the heart of man not the church.
That is correct.
Eric W, I pray that you will continue to be a soldier for the true faith( which you are) because from what i’m reading on Jason’s site the other Protestant guys it seems like they own a back rubbing salon. I mean there is some serious acquiescing going on. Eric said today he has no real problem with the Papacy. Any real push back besides you and me ain’t happening . And you know what happened to me. Why don’t they just call that a little family squabble over there, or the mutual admiration society. The respect being shown for Rome with Reformed sometimes makes me want to throw up. It takes guys like Horton, Sproul and MacArthur who are saged, to see it for what it is. I think the intellectual appeal mesmerizes a couple guys over there. They can’t put their flag down and leave it in the ground. Tim does not pull punches. He goes over there and is a formidable adversary, like you. K
Eric W, can you give Robert and Eric a message for me. I.m going to get them a t-shirt that says” Can we Protestants come in an play with your RC philosophical ball too. ” Forgive me Eric W, I get a little mad.
Kevin,
Be angry, but don’t sin. I think what they did was wrong. Try to read Tim’s books. Quite Contrary is very good.
Eric W, ya i’m sorry. I will read his book.
Excellent summary Tim, I never knew some of this stuff as a Catholic. I just took so much on blind faith. Wow, thanks.
Tim,
You might find these 3 helpful.
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/3113165230.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/31131649217.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/312131232196.pdf
Thanks, Walt,
I read these with interest, and I appreciate Greg Price. He made a comment in part 3 on the fire of heaven that the False Prophet was able to bring down from heaven in the sight of men:
He goes on to refer to the Papal anathemas and excommunications as that “fire,” and that fire is certainly a possibility—(see, for example, Jeremiah 5:14, “… behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.”)—although I don’t know if Greg L. Price was aware of the miracle at Fatima, either. The miracle of the sun was most dramatic at the Fatima apparition, but similar miracles have been reported at other apparitions sites.
My inclination is to see the papal anathemas as evidence of the arrogance of the First Beast and the Eleventh Horn (the Papacy), and not as the fire that the Second Beast (the False Prophet) brings down from heaven. I think the Apparitions of Mary, because they literally bring fire down from heaven in the sight of men, and in the sight of the first Beast, are a more likely fulfillment of the prophecy.
Also, because the Apparitions of Mary, wherever they appear, ask that their followers establish Eucharistic Adoration locally and throughout the world, I am inclined to see the Apparitions of Mary as the Second Beast (the false prophet) and the Eucharist as the Image of the Beast (more on that in my next post), as there are some rather remarkable miracles associated with the Eucharist, such that it literally comes to life and has the power to speak.
Thanks so much,
Tim
Tim, you wrote:
“My inclination is to see the papal anathemas as evidence of the arrogance of the First Beast and the Eleventh Horn (the Papacy), and not as the fire that the Second Beast (the False Prophet) brings down from heaven.”
Certainly, you know this better than most, we don’t want to use history to define Scripture but only Scripture to define Scripture. History deceives many of us (myself included) to define Scripture.
Who is the Beast of Revelation?
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/212131155100.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/212131231467.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/212131310350.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/212131417332.pdf
“As we have noted in recent sermons, the second Beast that has two horns like a lamb and speaks as a Dragon (in Revelation 13:11) is identified with the Church of Rome (in its hierarchy), which is also identified under two other symbols in the Book of Revelation: the False Prophet (Revelation 19:20), and the Great Harlot (Revelation 17:1-6). We now ask, who is this Image(in Revelation 13:14-15) that is given life by the hierarchy of the Church of Rome (through its cardinals) and is worshipped? 2 It is no secret to those who have heard previous sermons, that this moral being (referred to as “the image of the beast”) is most likely a symbol of the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church — a third great enemy of Christ and His faithful witnesses in the Book of Revelation.”
Who Is the Image of the beast?
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/313131254246.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/326131139357.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/415131450501.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/426131214135.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/5101312231.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/51713145794.pdf
“However, I submit that all of these suggested interpretations fall short of what is taught when we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.”
What is the Mark of the beast?
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/63131536368.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/61113112900.pdf
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/624131443458.pdf
Thanks, Walt,
What I appreciate about Price is that he sees this as an “in-house difference among Historicists.” I agree with his identification of the papacy as Antichrist, I do not agree with his identification of the First Beast as the revived Roman Empire. Nor would I subscribe to what he summarizes as “the Papacy” position, which identifies “the second Beast or False Prophet is the Roman Catholic Church, and the Image of the Beast is the Roman Catholic Synods and Councils or the worship of saints through images”.
What I propose (and will demonstrate) is that the Papacy is the Eleventh Horn with “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things” (Daniel 7:8) and therefore is the First Beast of Revelation (Revelation 13:5-6). The Second Beast is the Apparitions of Mary which speak the same false gospel as the First Beast, and cause people to make an image of the first Beast. That Image is the Eucharist that is set up for worship. The Eucharistic miracles associated with that idol, include the Eucharist being worshiped and coming to life and bleeding and speaking, in fulfillment of Revelation 13:15, “And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.”
I understand that Price sees “Lateinos” as the name that equals 666. I, rather, would assign that number to Vicarius Filii Dei, Latin for Vicar of the Son of God, since it is the name (and number) of a certain man. The individual letters add up to 666 according to the Roman numerals in VICARIVS FILII DEI. (The pope is called Vicarius Filii Dei in the forged Donation of Constantine by which the emperor was said to transfer the rights of the Roman Empire to the papacy).
I’ll get more into this in the next post, but there are only three things in Scripture that result in a mark on the hand and forehead (‘a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes’), and you’ll notice that only one of them is made by human hands:
Consecration of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12-16)
Teaching God’s Word to our children (Deuteronomy 6:6-8, 11:18)
Use of Unleavened Bread at Passover (Exodus 13:6-9)
Since the Mass is ostensibly the continuation of the Passover meal in which the unleavened bread is “transubstantiated” and worshiped, and of the three activities in Scripture which involve a mark on the hand and forehead, the unleavened bread is the only one that can be worshiped as an idol, I identify the Eucharist as the Image of the Beast. It comes to life, speaks, and wants to be worshiped. Because the visions of Mary “doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of me,” and wherever they appear, insist that their followers set up a chapel in “her honor” and establish perpetual Eucharistic adoration of “her son,” I believe the apparitions of Mary are that False Prophet that exercises all the authority of the First Beast “saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast” (Revelation 13:14).
Thus, as someone who takes the Historicist position, I nonetheless differ from my brethren in that I take neither the position of Price on the revived Roman Empire, nor “the papacy position” which identifies the False Prophet as the Roman Catholic Church, and the Image of the Beast as the Roman Catholic Synods and Councils or the worship of saints through images. I believe, instead, they are particular prophesies, fulfilled particularly—the False Prophet is a false prophet, and the image is an actual image.
I’ll make the case to the best of my abilities, and together we’ll measure that case against the bar of Scripture.
Sound good?
Thanks,
Tim
Sounds great..
The reformers did not agree on eschatology so until we get a lawful court system to hear the arguments and bind those decisions on earth, we are free to discuss them openly and share our disagreements. I like some of your views and continue to think about them openly.
Where we hopefully one day will find unity and uniformity as Presbyterians is in the Attainments we have reached with the Church of Scotland approved worship, government, doctrine and discipline. That would be even more of a visible blessing to the Lord’s remnant Christian church in our generation.
Thanks, Walt,
I’ve been reviewing the link you sent for the Church of Scotland, and when I look at the PCA today, I think, “How did we get here from there?” The Scots knew which way was up, that’s for sure.
Your comment that “History deceives many of us to define Scripture,” is, in my opinion, one of the most important statements ever made on this site. It’s a very important point.
More on that later, as I’m at a wedding reception.
Have a great weekend, everyone.
Tim
Tim,
I’m so pleased with your research and your constant desire to learn these things from the source documents. I have shared a few of your comments to our small remnant of covenanters, and while you and I come from Romish backgrounds and understand many of these “protestant” leanings that are Romish in origin, I can see some people asking “who is this guy Tim and why have we not seen his site before”.
Keep up the good work…I can see unity as we move closer to terms of communion, and the backsliding us Presbyterians have been on for generations. My father’s family was Jewish and my mom’s was Scottish in family heritage. How we became Roman Catholic is sad…for certain.
I hope to break the tradition, and get back to faithful witness testimony that will likely be like salt in the wound for Rome and her subordinate followers.
I hope you will join us as you do more research! Enjoy the wedding reception.
A wedding reception? Really? Well, if the wine runs out, look for a lady and her son. Blame the son for the wine running out as he brought a dozen hard drinking fishermen with him.
Go to the Lady ( she is the one in blue ). She will get her boy to fix the situation.
Well at least we can agree on the thing we are told in the WCF. The Pope is the son of perdition who puts himself up as God in the church, the very antichrist. As I read the argument on the other blog about sola scriptura, I reminded that Protestants don’t understand the magnitude of the rejection of the Papacy and its whole system as being Christian in the eyes of the Reformers. It was a repudiation of what the Roman church had become, namely a false church and a false Christianity, and not any way a part of the true church.
Kevin,
Amen, brother. Everyone is under the Scripture here. I can come to no other conclusion.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
Here are two books that come recommended that support Pastor Price sermons on the topic. You might find the information helpful.
Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation by Alexander M’Leod.
http://archive.org/stream/lecturesuponprin00mcle/lecturesuponprin00mcle_djvu.txt
Tim, Walt, EricW, your testimonies are great examples to me as I pray for Roman catholics with whom I have confronted in love with the Gospel, We can truly snatch them out of the fire as God lifts the veil on Catholic eyes to believe the gospel.
Kevin,
While it is good to focus on witnessing to the Roman Catholics, I suggest to Christians they should work on their own issues and knowledge. A saving “knowledge” of Christ is broader than a simple testimony. Listen to this sermon here:
False Doctrine & Heresy Are Great Sins, & Judgments From God 1 of 3 – Robert Baillie
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=524111217160
“The apostle teaches us that “it is required in a steward, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). Moreover, he expressly commands all of Christ’s sheep “to mark” faithful ministers, and to follow and emulate them (Phil. 3:17); and likewise “to mark” unfaithful teachers and to avoid or shun them (Rom. 16:17). It would be absurd to apply this term, or its opposite, to any minister or ecclesiastical body without clearly understanding what it essentially entails, and yet we fear that many, if not most, who employ it simply apply it, “understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7).
We submit the definition is very simple: a church is faithful if she displays a proven track record of obedience to her Lord’s commands (e.g., Gen. 18:19; Matt. 24:46; 25:14-30; Heb. 2:2). And how is such a track record to be ascertained? Only by a careful examination of her history, which, of course, is in the nature of the case extra-scriptural.
We may thus summarize the various biblical distinctions we’ve briefly considered, and state the conclusions to which they unavoidably drive us.
* Christ has given the ministry to His church for her well-being and unity.
* The devil has sown error and erring ministers within her ranks in an attempt to thwart the Lord’s intentions.
* Christ’s sheep are commanded to identify the faithful and unfaithful ministers in His church, following the one and shunning the other.
* The sum total of the ministry is to uphold and apply faithful terms of communion.
* Faithful ministers and churches are those which have a proven track record of so doing.
* This track record is only discerned by examining the extra-biblical history of a given church.
* In evaluating the various ‘Covenanter’ bodies we are therefore commanded to examine their respective uninspired, extra-scriptural histories to see whether they have a proven track record of upholding and applying faithful terms of communion. If they do, we must regard them as faithful and join with them; if they don’t, we must testify against them as guilty of spiritual adultery and corporate schism, and avoid or separate from them.
We now turn to endeavor just such an examination of those churches in Scotland and the United States over the past three centuries bearing the name ‘Reformed Presbyterian.’ ”
http://reformedpresbytery.org/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
Kevin,
Read the errors below. This could effect some protestants.
“Before we begin, it is necessary to state briefly the criteria of judgment – the overarching set of presuppositions and principles by which an examination of this nature ought to be fairly conducted. In so doing, we will use the cogent and biblically sound statement of principle penned by the Reformed Presbyterian Church herself and adopted by her own supreme judicatory in 1807:
The church may not recede from a more clear and particular testimony to a more general and evasive one; but the witnesses must proceed in finishing their testimony, rendering it more pointed and complete, until God shall, according to his promise, overthrow the empire of darkness, and introduce the millennial state, in which the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
But that which ye have already hold fast till I come (Revelation 2:25, KJV); Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples (Isaiah 8:16, KJV); And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:17, KJV); Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing (Philippians 3:16, KJV); And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held (Revelation 6:9, KJV); And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death (Revelation 12:11, KJV); Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom (Daniel 7:22, KJV); And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (Revelation 20:4, KJV); Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty. O let not the oppressed return ashamed: let the poor and needy praise thy name. Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily (Psalms 74:20-22, KJV);
And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen (Psalms 72:19, KJV).
We condemn the following errors, and testify against all who maintain them:
That the Bible is the only proper testimony of the Church.
That a Christian is under no obligation to follow Christ’s witnesses in their faithful contendings.
That it is lawful, in order to enlarge the Church, to open a wider door of communion, by declining from a more pointed testimony to one which is more loose and general (Reformation Principles Exhibited, 1807 edition, Chapter 32, “Of Testimony Bearing”).
It is upon this biblically sound statement of principle, that we will endeavor to examine the changes which have occurred within the Terms of Communion of the Reformed Presbyterian Church over the past 240 years.
We will also endeavor, by these stated criteria, to demonstrate that those who call themselves Reformed Presbyterians and who formally associate themselves with the modern day RPCNA are here left with the unenviable dilemma of choosing between the faithfulness of those subordinate documents and judgments of their own previous church courts in 1807, or conversely, choosing their present constitution and practice. In our judgment, and on this particular point, the principles and practice of the Reformed Presbyterian judicatory of 1807, and the principles and practice of the present day RPCNA are diametrically opposed, and it is not possible with consistency or honesty to approve of both at the same time. It is our hope that the reader will recognize an inherent fairness in judging these matters by their own official standards–especially recognizing that in these particulars, the standard which was set and published in 1807, was both wise and biblical.
http://reformedpresbytery.org/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
Tim, Just so you don’t feel dejected, I want you to know I am lurking. Are you three stoog…um, uh…amigos, yeah are you three amigos ( You, Walt and Baloney Falloni ) having fun back slapping each other?
Walt is a pleasant enough fellow, but after clicking on his stuff about John Knox, I can only laugh.
Tim, you go to so much work writing up you stuff against the Eucharist and Mary, yet nobody but Baloney bothers to read it.
Anyway, why don’t you pop on over to Fred Nolte’s thread on Called to Communion? It’s about Mary and the early Church. Since nothing is happening on this blog, c’mon over and chat.
Thanks, Jim,
I’m glad you dropped in. I’ve been known to drop in on a Roman Catholic blog here and there, so I might stop by.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, watch messing with he name. Remember the family in Sicily, not far from Portugal.
Hi Guys, Just lurking. You guys sure like the Book of Revelation. Good. Me too. Old Luther wanted it out and in the fire with Jimmy as it had “nothing of Christ in it”.
I really like Jesus’ words to Laodacia about standing at the door and knocking like a beggar. Kinda’ puts the kybosh on Calvinism.
For you Calvinists, God is like the ventriloquist having a discussion with his puppet.
Take care, I will keep an eye on you.
Enjoying the articles. Can you help me to understand how the false prophet is spoken of by scripture as a “he” and how “Mary” can still qualify? Thanks!
Sandy,
Thank you for your note. Since the apparitions of Mary are not actually “Mary” and therefore not actually “female,” the point is moot. The other beasts, being nations, are not really male, either, and are described as “he”. The city of Babylon is not female, yet is described as “she” in Scripture. The gender terms are merely personifications and ought not be taken to refer to an apparent gender of the actual beast. The False Prophet of Revelation 13 is just another beast, but not out of the sea like the others.
Thanks. I hope that makes sense.
I understand that as a spirit “Mary” is neither male nor female. I understand beast systems are personified with gender. I don’t understand how a beast system is conflated with an individual spirit. I don’t know the bible as well as you do, so perhaps you can give a scripture to help? What I mean is just because a system can be given a gender when it clearly has none doesn’t mean it would necessarily work that way on an individual who is clearly portraying a gender of the opposite sex. Unless it is that all spirits in the bible are spoken of in the masculine gender regardlessof appearance? Is that the case? When we see a spirit in scripture such as the angel Michael, we speak of “him” in the masculine gender, as well as satan but maybe that speaks nothing of their appearance. Maybe I’m assuming they appear masculine and that is my stumbling block.
Sandy, we don’t know that the apparitions of Mary are one spirit. They could be legion. The visions of Mary present very differently and sometimes say different and contradictory things. In any case, there is no indication from Revelation that the False Prophet is an individual spirit. They all claim to be Mary, but demons can claim a lot of things. If it’s a false prophet, we need not trust it when it present itself as Mary or female.
Something else to consider: the empires and kingdoms of Daniel’s visions are all called he, but empires and kingdoms are sometimes called she in Scripture. The Church itself is called a bride, and yet it is also the body of Christ which is male (Ephesians 4:13).
Thanks for taking the time to answer me. I’ll probably need more study time to ponder this. This is off topic, but do you have an article explaining when you think the 1260 years began in history and what historicists believe happens afterwards? I have never heard it explained by someone with a historicist perspective, except the 7th Day Adventists.
Thank you, Sandy. The time, times and an half of Daniel 7, and the 42 months of Revelation 13 refer to the period when the Little Horn/Beast persecutes the saints by the civil sword. I addressed that period in the Legs of Iron series, part 3, in a comment linked below. The short answer is that the Scriptures do not say the Beast will only last 42 months or that his kingdom will only last time time and an half, but rather that for that period he would wear out the saints and, as Revelation 13 says, “do” for 42 months. He will be able to have his way literally the “liberty of doing as one pleases,” but that does not mean his earthly dominion ends. It just gets a lot smaller. Since the Roman Catholic church took up the civil sword against “heretics” in the last decade of the 4th century (circa 395), 1260 years hence would be 1655 AD at which time the papacy abandoned the use of the civil sword and was precipitously reduced to being a small fish with a big mouth.
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2016/01/10/legs-of-iron-part-3/#comment-48700
To answer your question: what happens after the 1260 yrs and the final destruction of the Little Horn, there are some trumpet and bowl judgments that occur before he is destroyed.
Thank you. That helps my understanding a lot.
One thing I forgot to ask is do you have an article on explaining the beheading of Christians who refuse the mark? From the little I know, those who were persecuted by the RC church were tortured and burned at the stake.
Sandy, I don’t know of any such articles. Thanks.
Isn’t it rather sad that God is unable to perform miracles or speak to us to clarify and universally interperet scripture like Jesus did, but demons can perform such signs that only Moses could?
I hope some day the Holy Spirit would do more than just write our names in the book or scratch them out.
Imagine the gift of discernment came back so we could protect our children from pedophiles in the ministry by spotting then just by looking.
Imagine if the gift of wisdom came back so a huge number of Christians could interperet the Bible in the right way, the same way, the same time, without human wisdom, cultural ignorance of Biblical language and hebrew-greek culture shock, hateful agendas and political aspirations interfering.
Imagine if the gift of encouragement came back and made it not such a miserable chore to go to church when you aren’t emotionally invested in the meaningless 7/11 song lyrics and spiritual milk offered in every service and class.
Imagine if the fruits of the Spirit came back and Christians became a demonstrably and infuriatingly better, more moral people.
Imagine knowing exactly which scriptures are addesssed to us now instead of letting us delude ourselves with messages for other people, or perhaps knowing the correspondences the letters were replies to. (Hint: Every kind thing in the prophets was never written to us)
Imagine that the Holy Spirit filled and led and influenced more than the apostles.
Forget Jesus: I want the Holy Spirit’s second coming to actually start leading the church again.
Protestantism is a miserable 5th Grade level Christianity class every sunday taught by a man who beats his wife. Catholics are an industry of corruption, and failed mysticism in artificial leadership on God’s behalf, and the Orthodox are gaudy antisemiteswith stupid hats.