Apostolic Succession

Just making the claim that you are in succession to the Apostles does not make you one. Just claiming to be a Christian does not mean you are. Just claiming that your church leader is in succession to the Apostles and Christ does not mean you are. There are other Christs and their are other Apostles, but they are the emissary’s of Satan.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
(2Co 11:13)

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
(2Co 11:14)

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(2Co 11:15)

They have murdered saints and for that cause alone the end of this people will be found in Revelation 21:8 “But 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 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 18:4)

Is Romanism Christianity?

I have heard another one of those comments, that make me indulge to reiterate truth once again. The blood of the martyrs is on the hands of the Roman Catholic Church and her unspeakable acts of murder and hate can not be forgiven.

from is Romanism Christianity (Roman Catholic Church)

“…Christ commands us to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21); to “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39); to ascertain for ourselves, as the Bereans did, whether what we hear agrees with what we read in Scripture (Acts 17:11). He commands us to “hold fast the form of sound words,” uttered by Himself and His Apostles (2 Timothy 1:13); to “contend earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). But Rome says, “Let no one dare to do so” — let all “Christian princes… cause [men] to observe” our decrees (Session 16), nor “permit” them to be “violated by heretics” (Session 25). The Romanist must not dare to have an opinion of his own; his mind must exist in the state of utter prostration and bondage; he must not attempt to understand the Scripture himself. And if others attempt it — if they dare to receive the teaching and do the will of Christ, instead of receiving fictions and obeying commands of men, which wholly subvert and destroy the truth and will of Jesus, Rome commands the civil ruler to restrain them; and, by the use of fines, imprisonment, and death, to compel them, if possible, to renounce what God requires them to maintain and follow, even unto death.
The Bible, the whole Bible, nothing but the Bible, is the standard and the rule of Christianity. To know its meaning for ourselves, to receive its teaching, to rely on its promises, to trust in its Redeemer, to obey Him from delight of love, and to refuse to follow other teaching, is Christianity itself. But Romanism denies all this; and therefore, Romanism is not Christianity.
Secondly: Christ commanded us to show. “meekness” towards those who oppose us (2 Timothy 2:25). He says, “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who use you despitefully and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).
But Romanism teaches men to hate, and, if they are able, to persecute to the death all those who will not receive it. Its deeds have been diabolical and murderous. It is “drunken with the blood of the saints.” It has inscribed on the page of history warnings which appeal to the reason and the feelings of all generations. Such a warning is what is told of the 24th of August, 1572. On that day the Protestants of Paris were devoted to slaughter by members of the Papal Church. For the one offence of being Protestants, thousands were slain. The streets of Paris ran with blood; everywhere cries and groans, were mingled with the clangor of bells, the clash of arms, and the oaths of murderers. The king, Charles IX; stood, it is said, at a window, and, every now and then, fired on the fugitives. Every form of guilt, cruelty, and suffering, made that fearful night hideous and appalling…”

Bush becoming a Catholic?

This is going to have long term ramifications from the Christian right. I am not a part of the so called Christian right. I am a Conservative, but do not align myself with these people. However, this is kind of like a betrayal. I am sure that at the Judgment seat there are going to be a lot of surprised Roman Catholics that they will not be there, because they trusted in the wrong Christ. Yes, the Roman Catholic Christ is not the same as the one I call the Lord Jesus. Their Christ was married to Mary apparently, you need to read The Two Babylons to get what I am talking about.

Bush Becoming a Catholic?
Monday, June 16, 2008 11:05 AM

By: Jim Meyers

President Bush may follow in the footsteps of his brother Jeb and convert to Catholicism, several European papers are reporting.

In the wake of the president’s visit to see Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Italian newspapers, citing Vatican sources, said Bush was open to the idea of converting to Catholicism.

The Italian newspaper Il Foglio referred to such talk about Bush’s possible conversion and stated that “anything is possible, especially for someone reborn like Bush.”

Noting that Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after leaving office as Britain’s prime minister last year, the paper also stated that “if anything happens, it will happen after he finishes his period as president, not before. It is similar to Blair’s case, but with different circumstances.”

President Bush welcomed Pope Benedict XVI warmly when he visited the U.S. in April. And Vatican watchers noted that Bush met privately with the pontiff in the private gardens of the Vatican last Friday – an unprecedented place for the Pope to meet a head of state. Typically, the Vatican gardens are used by the Pope for private reflection.

A Vatican spokesman said the Pope used the unusual locale to reciprocate for the “warmth” Bush showed when the two met in Washington.

Though the Catholic Church has criticized the U.S. war in Iraq, Bush has been an ardent supporter of pro-life issues; he has staunchly opposed stem-cell research; and he opposes gay marriage – all issues important for Rome.

Currently Bush belongs to a Methodist church in Texas and attends an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.

A friend of Bush, Father George William Rutler – who converted to Catholicism in 1979 – told the Catholic News Agency that Bush “is not unaware of how evangelicalism, by comparison with Catholicism, may seem more limited both theologically and historically.”

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

What is the Pope.

At some point in the history of Rome the Caesar (we get our word czar from the word Caesar), became both the governmental leader (Emperor) and the religious leader. In the first century of the Christian era, as the influence of Christianity began to spread it came into conflict with Rome. This led to persecutions and an obsessive occupation with killing Christians in any way they saw fit. It was a spectacle at the Colosseum to watch Christians die. This began to change some what off and on through to the time of Constantine. He adopted Christianity as his religion and made it the state religion of the Roman empire in 355 A.D. So you can say that this was the Roman Catholic Church, down to this time you had Rome and there religion. You also had Christian churches spread across the empire from as far away as England, North Africa, Near East, France and Spain. There were many other places it spread and you could say these churches were Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means general and was a reference to the Christian faith as crossing boundaries in Race’s.

Constantine changed this when he adopted the Christian religion as his religion, this is not saying he really was a Christian. The church at Rome had apostatised from the true faith many years before this and it was just a formality to combine it with Rome. The Roman Emperor had adopted Christianity, but Christianity as a whole had not adopted Roman Catholicism. There were many places where Christianity flourished, but these finally became a part of the Roman Catholic church by the end of the fifth century. However, there were many little pockets through out the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) where Christian churches existed that had not succumbed to the empire. Roman Catholicism is the perfect marriage between religion and the state. The pope is a descendant of the HRE, not a representative of Christ on earth, that is left to those who are really believers in Christ, the Bible says that Believers in Christ are Ambassadors for Christ. The leader of the harlot is not a Christian, but an impostor. This was recognized by Luther and many others down through history.

Is Romanism truly Christianity?

Is Romanism truly Christianity. I will give you a clue it isn’t. Just so that anyone who reads my blog that I have written extensively on this subject. However, I am not alone in this observation. This has consisently in the past been the position of Baptists and Protestants.

BY
T. W. MEDHURST,
Glasgow, Scotland
I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions.
One reason why Popery has of late gained so much power in Great Britain and Ireland, and is gaining, power still, is that many Protestants look on it now as a form of true Christianity; and think that, on that account, notwithstanding great errors, it ought to be treated very tenderly. Many suppose that at the time of the Reformation, it was reformed, and that it is now much nearer the truth than it was before that time. It is still, however, the same; and, if examined, will be found to be so different from, and so hostile to, real Christianity, that it is not, in fact, Christianity at all. Christianity, as revealed in the Sacred Writings, is salvation by Christ. It sets Him before us as at once a perfect man, the everlasting God, the Godman Mediator; who, by appointment of the Father, became a Substitute for all who were given Him. It teaches that by Him God’s justice was magnified, and His mercy made manifest; that, for all who trust in Him, He fulfilled the law, and brought in a complete righteousness; and that by this alone they can be justified before God. It teaches that His death was a perfect sacrifice, and made full satisfaction and atonement for their sins, so that God lays no sin to their charge, but gives them a free and full pardon; that He has ascended to the right hand of God, and has sent down the Holy Spirit to be His only Vicar and Representative on earth; that He is the only Mediator between the righteous God and sinful man; that it is by the Holy Spirit alone that we are convinced of sin, and led to trust in Jesus that all who trust in Him, and obey Him with the obedience of faith and love, are saved, and, being saved, are made “kings and priests unto God,” and have “eternal life” in Him...more

Is the Pope my spiritual father?

This should have a very simple answer, but unfortunately this statement will probably have an effect that will disturbe some people.

The pope is not my spiritual father, that rest’s solely with the Lord God and His Son The Lord Jesus Christ. So if the pope is not father, then what is he. This must be taken in the darkness of what the Catholic church it says about him. He is supposedly the lineal represenative of Peter and hence Jesus Christ himself. If he is indeed a represenative of Christ, which I most adamantly say he is not, then he is at the very least an anti-Christ or is indeed the anti-Christ. He does not in any case represent the vast majority of Christians world wide that do not call themselves Roman Catholics.

I am from this point on calling him Anti-Christ instead of what the Catholic church says he is. I do not now and never recognized him as a real believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hagee backs down on Catholic comments

John Hagee had this comment to make in an apology to Catholics from an article in USA Today:

“In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholics and Protestant relations with the Jews,” Hagee wrote. “In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not.”

Oh! But it does define them, the same attitude towards the scriptures and obedience to the clear commands of scripture are ignored by the Catholic Church, such as the one about Idols. Or the worship of men as opposed to the sole worship of God. Yes, they are not much different, although they are not trying saints for crimes against the church, then they were in the dark ages. The traditions of the Catholic church reek of a whore totally unrelated to the Christ of the Scriptures.

“Hagee has often made references to “the apostate church” and the “great whore,” terms that Catholics say are slurs aimed at the Roman Catholic Church. In his letter, Hagee said he now better understood that his use of those descriptions, taken from the Book of Revelations, are “a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary.”"

Rhetoric or not the truths behind them stand very well. The book of revelations description is of the Catholic church is taken from the description of the whore as sitting on 7 hills. The abomination is spoken of as a combination resulting from the marriage of church and state. The Catholic church is the arch typical combination of these two things. I believe that the Roman church is far from being Christian, but is the continuance in modern time of the Holy Roman Empire, which was a marriage of the Roman empire to the Christian church at Rome. The Roman church did not exist outside of the Roman empire until well after the third century. Even when the Nicean Creed was being formed, the Roman church was still not in control of all the churches spread througout the empire. During the whole time of the formation of the Roman party there were churches in the remote areas around europe that were still primitive Baptist Churches.

Me trust the Catholics? Not on your life! Or mine for that matter.

He stressed that in his use, “neither of these phrases can be synonymous with the Catholic Church.”

Regardless they are synonymous with the Catholic church and if the Apostle John was with us I guarantee that he would also equate the Catholic church with the abominable whore of his book.

The Eucharist a false doctrine

“(Heb 10:12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;”

The practice of either transubstantantian as praciticed by the Catholics or co substantian as practiced by Lutherans are both in error. It is for the following reason the verse above says that Christ only made one sacrifice for all time, not one that is repeated weekly, one repeated weekly is powerless to save and makes the work of Christ on the Cross of no value. Why? Simply put if the offering has to be repeated, then it must not have been good enough. More on this later check back.

Evangelicals Desert the Faith once delivered

The Reformation fathers would be very disappointed in this generation. The battle cries of the Reformation were summed up on the words Sola Scriptura, this was always backed up by a turning to the scriptures to draw our understanding of sin, judgement and salvation. The further cry of the reformation was Justification by Faith alone, no works can ever get you into heaven only faith in the Word of God….

“The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.¹ What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”² Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road..more

The Catholic Church is an imposter.

The Catholic church attempts to date themselves way back to 33 A.D. This despite the complete lack of evidence that they were even around in 33 A.D. The early church was decidedly not Catholic. The new testament churches of the first century had more in common with present day Baptists, (sometimes called ana-Baptist), then with the so called Catholic Church. There is an undefinable, but unbroken line from new testament times till the present. The early churches were by no way perfect and when I say they were undefinable I mean that we have very little in the way of records that can define them for us. They were to busy dying at the hands of the Catholic Church. The Popes hands are dripping with the blood of the martyr’s, there is no repentance for them, if you are a Catholic I strongly urge you to leave the whore church now, because the wrath of God is going to be unleashed, the Catholic church will find itself at the outpouring of that bowl of wrath. Baptized believers have been present in every generation back to the New Testament. They had to hide in the mountains of Switzerland and wherever else they could to perserve their faith.

I am going to come back to this discussion later on, but first let’s define what we mean by the word “Church”? One definition of the church says, “The visible Curch of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly adminstered according to Christ ordance in all things that are of necessity requisite to the same”, if you substitute ordinances here for sacrament, this is not a bad definition (Jarrel, 4). The visible local church is the true church any churches based on anything else is not a church. The Roman church is not the local church, but the general body, hence Catholic. Granted there are local bodies, but they just exist to distribute their poison.

“A Christian church is a congregation of baptised believers in Christ, worshipping together, associated in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; praqcticing its precepts; observing its ordinances; recognizing and receiving Christ as their Supreme law giver and ruler; and taking His Word as their sufficient and exclusive rule of faith and practice in all matters of religion. (Jarrel, 4)” The New Hampshire Confession: “We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptised believers, aassociated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel observing the ordances of Christ; governed by His laws; and exercising the gifts, rights and privileges invested in them by His Word,…(Jarrel, 5)”

“The greek word for church is Ecclesia and is used some 114 times in the New Testament (Jarrel, 5).” Of those 99 times it refers to a local church, not a spiritual church, not a universal church, but a local church. It always refers to a local body and never anything else. So according to New Testament church, the Roman Catholic Church does not have a scriptural practice, but extra scriptural. There is no pope whatwoever mentioned in the New Testament, there are no offices such as Cardnials, Arch Bishops, etc. There are elders and pastors mentioned in scripture, but these are all in conjunction with you guessed it a local church. The actual church mentioned in scripture is a local body. If the Roman Catholics are correct then the church they support is where they should go. What I am saying is if Catholics are right they need to start attending the church they are members of, go to Rome, Italy and attend church there. In fact why not have every Catholic move to Rome, I will even help them pack.

When Jesus said these words, “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt 16:18, says Dr. Jarrel, “This is a church, but one kind of church–a kingdom–not “branches.” The disciples are branches of HIM. However there are no branches of Him. The Lord Jesus Christ is head of the church and its king, not the Pope in Rome. My spiritual ancestors died for sentiment such as this and I am proud to stand next to them in this day of spiritual darkness.

So we have defined the church as being a local body, it is never spoken in Scripture other wise. There is no truth to a Universal church, be it Catholic or Protestant. The local church then has as its head Christ, He alone is our King and Savior, there is none other and there is none like HIM. The only way to preserve the local church is through a local church. A monster like the Catholic church is powerless to do anything about its mounting moral morass. A local church on the other hand has power to excommunicate and it has real meaning. Christ is also the High Priest, we need no other priest, every believer is given the right to represent himself to God, we call this the priest hood of the believer and it is based on Christ as the High Priest. The church needs no prophets because we have the one who penned His eternal word, Christ Jesus and He holds the reigns of the future.

Unlike others who have brought this up, I will not stand for any name calling or shenanigans. That means if you are a Catholic, the only thing I would really like to here is that you have personally repented and are leaving the Catholic church. Then you must acknowledge your need of Christ who died for your sins was buried and was raised from the dead the third day. You say that you already believe in Christ, but the Christ you believe in is not the Christ of the Bible. You have been duped again by the whore.