a system of apostasy

Henry Grattan GuinnessPosted 2013 “… this apostasy was to have a head, and the coming and character of that head are the great subject of Paul’s Thessalonian prophecy. A mistaken apprehension of his first letter to them had led the Thessalonians to expect an immediate advent of Christ, and in his second epistle Paul sets himself to correct this error by further instruction as to the future. He tells them of something that was destined to precede the return of Christ, a great apostasy, which would reach its climax in the manifestation of a certain mighty power of evil; to which he attaches three names, and of which he gives many particulars similar to those which Daniel gave of his “little horn,” such as the place and time of its origin, its nature, sphere, character, conduct, and doom.

The names which the apostle gives to this head of the apostasy in this prophecy are “that man of sin, . . . the son of perdition,” and “that wicked” or “lawless” one. These expressions might convey to the mind of superficial readers the idea that the predicted head of the apostasy would be an individual. Careful study however shows this to be a false impression—an impression for which there is no solid foundation in the passage. The expressions themselves, when analysed grammatically, are seen to bear another signification quite as well, if not better, and the context demands that they be understood in a dynastic sense. “The man of sin,” like “the man of God,” has a broad, extended meaning. When we read “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works,” we do not suppose it means any one individual man, although it has the definite article. It indicates a whole class of men of a certain character, succession of similar individuals. The use of the definite article (analogous to the omission of the article in Greek) does indeed limit an expression of the kind. A man of sin could be only one, just as a king of England could mean only an individual. The king, on the other hand, may include a whole dynasty. A king has but the life of an individual, the king never dies. When, in speaking of the Jewish tabernacle in Hebrews, Paul says that into the holiest of all “went the high priest alone once every year,” he includes the entire succession of the high priests of Israel. That a singular expression in a prophecy may find its fulfilment in a plurality of individuals is perfectly clear from John’s words, “As ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even so now are there many antichrists”

Any doubt or ambiguity as to the true force of the expression “the man of sin” is however removed by a consideration of the context of this passage. popeGrammatically it may mean either an individual or a succession of similar individuals. The context determines that it actually does mean the latter. “The mystery of iniquity,” in which this man of sin was latent, was already working in Paul’s day. The apostasy out of which he was to grow was already in existence. “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” The man of sin, on the other hand, was to continue till the second advent of Christ, which is still future; for he is destroyed, as it is distinctly stated, only by the brightness of the epiphany. The interval between Paul’s days and those of the still future advent was then to be filled by the great apostasy in either its incipient working as a mystery of iniquity or its open manifestation and great embodiment in the career of ” the man of sin and son of perdition.” That career must consequently extend over more than a thousand years, for the process of gestation is certainly briefer than the duration of life. In this case of the man of sin the two together occupy at least eighteen centuries. What proportion of the period can we assign to the hidden, mysterious growth of this power, and what to its wonderfully active and influential life? The life must of course occupy the larger half, to say the least of it, and therefore, as no individual lives on through ages, we may be sure that it is a succession of men, a dynasty of rulers, that is intended by the ambiguous expression. We, students of the nineteenth century, may be sure of this, though the students of early centuries could not.” Romanism and the Reformation: From the Standpoint of Prophecy by Henry Grattan Guinness

Advertisements

Futurism – The Roman Catholic Counter Reformation

candles7

The Catholic Counter Reformation – Futurism
Up to this point, Rome’s main method of attack had been largely frontal: openly burning Bibles and heretics. Yet this warfare only confirmed in the minds of Protestants the conviction that papal Rome was indeed the Beast power that would “make war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7). Therefore a new tactic was needed, something less obvious. The sought after solution was found in the Jesuit Order.
Eleven years earlier, on August 15, 1534, Ignatius Loyola founded a secret Catholic order called the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits.
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church gave the Jesuits the specific assignment of bringing Protestantism back to the “Mother Church.” This was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through theology and deception.
Two Jesuits named Francisco de Ribera and Robert Bellarmine invented the system called FUTURISM.
Futurism places the coming of Antichrist just 7 years before the end of time.
The Christians were hindering his coming, and they will be raptured out before his appearance.

Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast of Revelation.
He then developed the doctrine of futurism. His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time. Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist.
In 1590 Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church. Antichrist, he taught, would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and who would rebuild Jerusalem.
Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God-asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther, and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God.
The result of [Ribera’s] work was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.
Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine of Rome. Between 1581-1593, Cardinal Bellarmine agreed with Ribera in his work Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of this Time.
The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among Catholics. They were taught that antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time.

Maundy Thursday

“Today is Maundy Thursday…” no it’s not, stop it!

“I love it when you call me big Papa..” – Pope Francis

papa

“…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”

( Jeremiah 10:7; Mark 12:33; Deuteronomy 12:32; Exodus 20:4-6 )

You mean Jesuit?

JESUIT

WIKI:

There has historically been general agreement with non-preterists that the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar’s preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants, and preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.

Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.

John Brown on the Antichrist

HALL

“The above characteristics drawn from Scripture cannot be wholly found in the heathen Emperors of Rome, much less in the fanciful Danitish-Antichrist of popish writers, or the Armillus of the Jews, or the Daggial of the Mahometans. The Mahometan system may indeed be considered as a lesser antichrist, but neither contain all the characteristics applicable to it. It does not sit in the Church, nor appear to men to have a power equal to God’s. It allows no idolatry, nor is it notable for the persecution of the saints, nor was it established by lying wonders, but by the power of the sword. Actually, every characteristic is clearly found in the papacy.” – John Brown of Haddington, “Dictionary of Bible Characters”, p. 125

Papal Simony

papacy

‘Simony’ (corruption and sale of ecclesiastical offices) and ‘nepotism’ (favouritism shown by the popes to their ‘nephews’) had long been in vogue but had increased greatly in the course of the preceding century. It was scarcely ever claimed any longer that any pope had been elected without simony; legation reports gave precise details of payments and promises of high honours made during the elections. The sales of ecclesiastical offices, of both high and medium rank, had become recognized practice; the cardinals themselves pressed the pope to resort to this well-tried means when money was short. A further well-known custom, and one that was bitterly contested, especially abroad, was ‘pluralism’ – the bestowal of three, four and up to as many as ten or fifteen high offices on a single favoured individual; it was forbidden under canon law but practised widely without compunction. In Luther’s day there was hardly a cardinal who did not enjoy the rich rewards of four of five highly lucrative offices, in many cases aboard; usage permitted these to be transferred to members of family, thus creating a further nepotism within the great nepotism of the popes. But the establishment of their nephews and cousins in high office by the popes, which had been going on for centuries, now developed on a really big scale; the papal families became great Italian landowners. Duchies and even kingdoms were demanded for the clan. These had to be wrested from someone and this necessitated wars and campaigns, which were waged with all the means of ‘ecclesiastical power’, including excommunication and interdict. Italy became a battlefield, above all when the foreign powers – France, Spain, Germany – were drawn in. Source: Luther by Richard Friedenthal

The Iron Hoop

pope“The infallibility is the iron hoop around the Church of Rome.

In every variety of outward circumstances, and amid the most furious conflicts of discordant opinions, that Church is and must ever be the same. Change or amendment she can never know. She cannot repent, because she cannot err. Repentance and amendment are for the fallible only.

Far more marvelous would it be to hear that she had changed than to hear that she had been destroyed. It will one day be told the world, and the nations will clap their hands at the news, that the Papacy has fallen; but it will never be told that the Papacy has repented.

She will be destroyed, not amended.” – J. A. Wylie

Will the world remember the Pope’s words concerning “climate change” when they are proven false?

“And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18

dividerIt may seem “mean or hateful” to post such things about the Roman system and the Papacy. These posts are not from a place of anger, bitterness or mean-spirited gutter snipping, but to warn against this false system of works and faith. They are neither historical or biblical and therefore should be condemned as false.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Is “Calvinism” Biblical? (pt 10)

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT FAITH AND REPENTANCE ARE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:

 Him hath God exalted with  his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to  Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5)

“granted repentance unto life”

When they heard these  things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God  also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11)

Lydia, dead in sin and unable to respond to the spiritual offer of the Gospel was granted repentance. The revealed word of God demonstrates in Acts 5 that Israel was also “given” repentance. By post #10 it should be apparent that I seek to give a consistent witness to the Doctrines of Grace/Calvinism using both the Old and New Testaments. A consistent doctrine cannot be maintained by the Arminian free will tradition.

And  a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of  Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened,  that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. (Acts 16)

 Due to sin we are called by Christ and “believed through grace:”

And  when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting  the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: (Acts 18)

Look at any Greek grammar and you’ll find that “grace” and “faith” are summed up by “and that not of yourselves.” Both grace and faith are given by God.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2)

We are given grace and faith on behalf of Christ and Christ alone.

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; (Phil 1:29)

Repentance is given by God.

In  meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Tim 2)

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT CALLS A SINNER IT IS EFFECTUAL:

Saints are called” by God.

Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To  all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you  and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ro 1)

Predestined” and “called” by God.

Moreover whom he did  predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also  justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Ro 8)

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Ro 9)

A biblical pattern can be established, just as Paul was “called with a purpose,” so are we.

Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother. Unto  the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in  Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call  upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s:

Christ’s sheep hear His voice…

God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor 1)

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But  God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;  and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things  which are mighty; And  base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God  chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that  are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. (Gal 1)

The Saints are “called by his grace.” Those who are not called are not Christ’s sheep.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (1 Cor 1)

Called by God…

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Eph 4:4)

Our calling is not based on something within us but “according to his own purpose.”

Who hath saved us, and  called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but  according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ  Jesus before the world began, (2 Tim 1:9)

And for this cause he is  the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the  redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament,  they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)

Jude was “called.” Those who are called will believe.

Jude, the servant of Jesus  Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the  Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: (Jude 1)

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; (1 Peter 1)

But ye are a chosen  generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that  ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of  darkness into his marvellous light; (1 Pet 2:9)

But  the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by  Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect,  stablish, strengthen, settle you. (1 Pet 5)

The calling is not according to our will power as the free will proponent would have us believe but according to “divine power.”

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and  godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and  virtue: (2 Pet 1:3)

Those that are “called, and chosen, and faithful” will overcome in Christ Jesus. Amen.

These  shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he  is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are  called, and chosen, and faithful. (Rev 17)

One  of the errors Arminians cling to is known as “prevenient  grace.”  This form of grace is thought to prepare the sinner by assisting them to believe binding total libertarian free will with the scriptural idea of salvation by Christ alone through faith, but it creates other problems. The Arminian notion was predated in Romanism and stated at the Council of Trent (session 6, canon 5) as “stimulating” and “assisting” grace. This idea runs contrary to scripture, for example, we read that Lydia’s “heart was opened”  (Acts 16) before she could attend unto the things  Paul spoke of. The Papist and Arminian believes this is a prime example of God attempting, trying His hardest to offer the Gospel to someone by giving them a measure of  “assisting” grace. The person receiving this so-called grace is given the chance to accept or reject the Gospel. Unfortunately not everyone has the chance to even hear the Gospel, let alone reject it, so any idea of God sending preparing grace is not worth debating. It’s a weak attempt to avoid a biblical conclusion. If grace is not given to all equally the free will works religion falls apart, for a mass of humanity has never had a chance to even have the Gospel preached to them. The point is inconsistent with scripture as I have shown above and throughout these posts. I only mention the idea because, I believe,  predestination is still contained within the concept for God only  gives “prevenient  grace” to  those who hear the Gospel and the Gospel is not preached to everyone everywhere. The free will notion of prevenient grace is still limited. Clearly, the experience Lydia had was  foretold in Eze. 36 and was in reference to the new birth, “A new heart  also will I  give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will  take away  the stony heart out of your flesh, and  I will give you an heart of  flesh.” (see also Hebrews 8) This is regeneration by the Holy Spirit and not “assisting” grace. 

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

Do you think the Pope is born again?

Dr. Michael L. Brown posted the following question on facebook: “Do you think the Pope is born again?”

Pope Francis celebrates Mass during meeting with Augustinian priests in Rome

Dr. James White replied:

“…can a man be born again and allow himself to be called by the names of the Trinity? The Pope is called Holy Father, a title used only of God the Father in Scripture. As a Roman priest he was identified as an “alter Christus,” “another Christ,” at his ordination. And he is called the Vicar of Christ, and that, we know, is the role and function of the Holy Spirit. He heads a church which enslaves millions with a gospel that can never give peace. So I think the answer to that one is really, really clear.”

My question to those who read my blog, “Who, according to scripture, would seek God’s titles, call himself another Christ, pretend to sit in the place of Christ and rule over the church in place of Jesus Christ?”

It seems Dr. White’s comment stirred up a little discussion. Dr. White continues,

“The ‘responses’ my comment has received are sadly enlightening. Almost none, of course, have actually been responses in the sense of actually dealing with my argument. But dealing with arguments is the trait of the Old World, where the CONTENT of speech was the focus. Now we are surrounded by people who ignore CONTENT and replace that with FEELINGS so that it is the pattern of speech, the emotional response to speech, that matters. The prime example is someone named Alfa Perspective:”

and Dr White what miracle have you performed lately ?! your hatred for the Catholic church is really disturbing….I wonder what your real motives are …? If you really love Jesus you would not divide his followers more…..but unite them…..I wonder what agenda you are following blindly or willingly….to preach Jesus you need more than just words……and all you got are just words….so if you are using Jesus as a means to divide the church…. your sin is so great…may the love of Christ set you on the right path Dr White just because you have Phds from different universities , this does not make you a real follower of Jesus….; you can steal some wandering sheep from here and there……but at the end God will be the judge ……I hope you are not betraying Christ….

Even the devil knows that the bible is true…; the devil is using Jesus name to weaken his church and divide the believers;the Catholic Church has been around for over 2000 years……;the Catholic Church is the true Shepherd …..others are not…..so Dr White which side are you on ?!

Frighteningly, this same Alfa Perspective then linked to…Theodore Shoebat (a sure sign of being massively imbalanced). Another person, Seraphim Hamilton, wrote:

Hi Dr. White. This is a pretty superficial analysis. Don’t you think that, even if it is not wise, it might be possible for a man to allow someone to use those titles while meaning different things? For example, you call yourself a Christian, meaning little Christ. If you meant that you were eternally generated from Christ, this would be blasphemy. But that isn’t what you mean- likewise, Roman Catholics believe that the pope is a visible image of God’s paternity- just as Paul says all paternity derives jameswhitefrom the paternity of the Father relative to His Son.

The fact that any of these folks actually think that their replies are even slightly relevant to the argument I presented is shocking, and yet, this is the kind of irrationality that prevails in our modern age.”

Thank you Dr. White for standing for the Gospel against the pretenders!