Sorting out the history of true Christianity from that of the apostate Antichrist Roman church

I thought I had a pretty good grasp of church history and of the antichrist nature of the Catholic Church, but what I've been learning recently shows me that not only my own education in this area but what the Protestant churches in general know is sadly deficient. And I've heard some very good teaching on church history so this is saying something.

I'm talking about what I've been learning recently through Chris Pinto and Brannon Howse at their websites, and now this morning from Mike Gendron (pro-gospel.org), an ex-Catholic who seeks to educate Catholics to the truth, who was Howse's guest on today's radio show.

Much of the confusion comes from the fact that there are two different streams of church history, the Catholic and the Protestant, and it is possible to read a Catholic history without being aware that you are absorbing false propaganda. I'm sure that's happened to me many times. Getting the true history straight is not easy for the average reader.

A caller from the UK on Howse's program this morning referred to a book about the history of Christianity in England by Charles Bullock, titled The Story of England's Church written in the 19th century, which is online at Google Books. Wish I could copy out some of it. It's the sort of information that all Protestant churches should have been making a major effort to teach their people all along, so that no Protestant could ever be deluded that Roman Catholicism is a Christian church which so often happens.

Broader knowledge of this kind of information would have protected many individuals and even denominations from their own leanings in the direction of that apostasy that unfortunately seems to be growing these days, and it would have made a much stronger base for helping Catholics escape. It's certainly true that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but of course we cannot remember it unless we are taught it if it is a past before our time.

What I've been learning from these ministries is that the Roman Church was recognized very early on as the seat of the Antichrist, at least back to the first Waldensians, who fled to the mountains upon recognizing the Pope as the Abomination of Desolation sitting in the temple making himself out to be God, as scripture warns us is to occur. I'd otherwise had the notion that it was the Reformers who first identified the papacy as the Antichrist system. I also hadn't digested the fact before that the Pope by receiving the sort of worship he receives does make himself out to be God, if the title "Vicar of Christ" weren't enough of a clue [and the Roman numerals in that title as written in Latin -- VICARIVUS FILII DEI -- add up to 666, by the way (The phrase means "In the place of, or substitute for, the Son of God")]. I've also learned that the Great Apostasy or falling away was attributed to the doctrines of the Roman Church all the way back to the early church as well, and that the apostasy was a thing that grew over the centuries so that it is hard to identify the exact point at which it was fullblown. Perhaps by the time of the first official Pope at least, which was in the late 6th century. I've also learned beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Emperor Constantine was not a true Christian convert since he continued to affirm the pagan religions that a true Christian would have abandoned completely, and that it's even possible he may have confused Christ with the pagan god Sol Invictus.

From this fuller view of history it's easier to see how some would not necessarily be expecting a final individual to be the Antichrist, as he's been in the world all these centuries. It certainly makes clear that Nero was NOT the Antichrist as some argue -- was THAT familiar idea a Roman concoction perhaps?

There's plenty of reading on this subject on the internet. Just following out the entries on this Google page should keep you busy for a while. I see that Michele Bachmann's church rightly says that the Pope is the Antichrist but of course the entry on that has the usual politically correct spin, which in this case is the Roman Catholic slant. I particularly appreciate Ian Paisley on this subject. He's a fire-and-brimstone Irish preacher whose style of preaching can be rather offputting, but I became a fan when he was shown in one of Chris Pinto's films confronting the Pope as the Antichrist when he was speaking in British Parliament [correction:  that's the European Parliament, and Dr. Paisley is more than just a preacher, he's also a high-ranking government leader in Ireland with a chair in the European Parliament]. THAT's the spirit of Protestantism we need more of.

One recent comment by Chris Pinto on a radio show caught my attention as he took to task Marshall Foster who said something to the effect that after Constantine legalized Christianity the Roman Empire furthered the spread of the gospel. Chris Pinto objected that all the Roman Empire did was spread the apostate Christianity of the Roman Church. I need this sorted out better. I hadn't heard of Marshall Foster before, but I have heard teaching along the lines that the Roman Empire was one of God's means for spreading the gospel. This goes along with other teaching I've heard that God chose to send the Lord Jesus into the world when Koine Greek was the universal language so that the gospel writings could be easily disseminated, AND when the Roman Empire with its wide reach made travel easy. God of course disposes all things, and the gospel did spread throughout Europe, but did the legalization of it through Constantine aid that or not? The idea is that after the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Emperors were lifted it was easier for the evangelists to do their work, along with the idea that the fact that Roman institutions were established all over Europe, even just the Roman roads, facilitated the spread of the gospel as well. This may be something along the lines of what Marshall Foster had in mind, but of course I don't know. And even if so, Chris Pinto may be right that the legalization of Christianity didn't aid anything but the spread of apostasy and Marshall Foster simply has the usual Catholicized version of history that we are all so easily made prey to. Or perhaps there's some truth in both views.

That reminded me of a book I read a few years ago about the effect of Christianity in changing the world for the better, Alvin J. Schmidt's Under the Influence. As I recall, the book presents the effect of the spread of Christianity (and I believe he attributes this effect partly to Constantine's legalization of the religion) as specifically fostering humane treatment of the sick and suffering, including rescuing newborn infants left to die and the aged who were also put out on the street to die, by first taking such victims in and caring for them but then by establishing hospitals and orphanages. He also credits Christianity with liberalizing society's attitude toward women through the model of Christ, also with paving the way for true empirical science because of Christianity's view of God as a God of law and order, unlike the gods of the pagans.

But now after seeing Chris Pinto's films I recognize that Schmidt misrepresented Francis Bacon as a Christian, who was an occultist. He also wrote a reference book about secret societies in America, which clearly presents them as benign positive influences, quite the opposite of what Chris Pinto's films reveal.

The plot thickens.

A small tribute to the Reformation Anti-Catholic work known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs

Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a classic account of the persecutions and murders of Christian individuals and groups down the centuries starting with the first apostles of Christ. Here is an online copy of the book. The early chapters concern persecutions under the pagans, the chapter titled Papal Persecutions starts the accounts of persecutions by the Roman Church of Christians who had fled that institution.

There are those who have no knowledge whatever of the pre-Reformation Christians outside the Roman Church, such as the Waldensians and the Albigensians and many others, and continue to promote the false belief fostered by the Roman Church itself that Romanism represented Christianity and that those they persecuted were all heretics. Foxe's Book of Martyrs is one of the main sources of information to the contrary and of course the Papal Antichrist would seek to discredit it.

And yes it is quite partisan, it is thoroughly anti-Romanism and anti-papist, which reflects the perspective of the Reformation. It's perhaps more of a tract than a work of history but most of its information is nevertheless based on known sources and considered to be generally trustworthy. Some try to discredit the book on the basis of its style and partisanship, but even the Wikipedia article which acknowledges its scholarly imperfections nevertheless affirms that the material is "generally accurate" and documents its valid sources.

The following is from the Wikipedia article:

Foxe as historian
Foxe often treated his material casually, and any reader "must be prepared to meet plenty of small errors and inconsistencies."[29] The material contained in the work is generally accurate, although selectively presented. Sometimes he copied documents verbatim; sometimes he adapted them to his own use. While both he and his contemporary readers were more credulous than most moderns, Foxe presented "lifelike and vivid pictures of the manners and feelings of the day, full of details that could never have been invented by a forger."[30]

His sources
Foxe based his accounts of martyrs before the early modern period on previous writers, including Eusebius, Bede, Matthew Paris, and many others. He compiled an English martyrology from the period of the Lollards through the persecution of Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses.[5] In the work of collection Foxe had Henry Bull as collaborator.[31] The account of the Marian years is based on Robert Crowley's 1559 extension of a 1549 chronicle history by Thomas Cooper, itself an extension of a work begun by Thomas Lanquet. Cooper (who became a Church of England Bishop) strongly objected to Crowley's version of his history and soon issued two new "correct" editions.[32]

Handling of sources
The book's credibility was challenged in the early 19th century by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland.[5][25] Subsequently Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of "wilful falsification of evidence"; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe "sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence".[33]

In contrast, J. F. Mozley maintained that Foxe preserves a high standard of honesty, arguing that Foxe's method of using his sources "proclaims the honest man, the sincere seeker after truth."[34] The 2009 Encyclopædia Britannica notes that Foxe's work is "factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere."[35]

Objectivity and advocacy
Foxe's book is in no sense an impartial account of the period. He did not hold to later notions of neutrality or objectivity, but made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as "Mark the apish pageants of these popelings" and "This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing."[36] David Loades has suggested that Foxe's history of the political situation, at least, is 'remarkably objective'. He makes no attempt to make martyrs out of Wyatt and his followers, or anyone else who was executed for treason, except George Eagles, who he describes as falsely accused."[37]

Sidney Lee writing in the Dictionary of National Biography called him "a passionate advocate, ready to accept any primâ facie evidence". Lee also listed some specific errors and pieces of plagiarism.[22] In developing the same metaphor, Thomas S. Freeman argues that Foxe "may be most profitably seen in the same light as a barrister pleading a case for a client he knows to be innocent and whom he is determined to save. Like the hypothetical barrister, Foxe had to deal with the evidence of what actually happened, evidence that he was rarely in a position to forge. But he would not present facts damaging to his client, and he had the skills that enabled him to arrange the evidence so as to make it conform to what he wanted it to say. Like the barrister, Foxe presents crucial evidence and tells one side of a story which must be heard. But he should never be read uncritically, and his partisan objectives should always be kept in mind."[5]

Religious perspectives
For the English Church, Foxe's book remains a fundamental witness to the sufferings of faithful Christians at the hands of the anti-Protestant Roman Catholic authorities and to the miracle of their endurance unto death, sustained and comforted by the faith to which they bore living witness as martyrs. Foxe emphasizes the right of English people to hear or read the Holy Scripture in their own language and receive its message directly rather than as mediated through a priesthood. The valour of the martyrs in the face of persecution became a component of English identity.[citation needed]

Roman Catholics consider Foxe a significant source of English anti-Catholicism, charging among other objections to the work, that the treatment of martyrdoms under Mary ignores contemporary mingling of political and religious motives — for instance, ignoring the possibility that some victims may have intrigued to remove Mary from the throne.[38]

The article above suggests that "evidence damaging to his client" exists that Foxe ignores, but does not give it. Surely we can ASSUME that there is such "evidence" and that a great deal of it is simply the viewpoint of the papacy.

Roman Catholicism is Antichrist!

This poster is even defending Christianity but still, this kind of mistake gets to be very discouraging:

The worse [sic] stuff Christianity did was hundreds of years ago

CHRISTIANITY NEVER DID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. THE INQUISITION WAS NOT THE DOING OF CHRISTIANITY. TRUE CHRISTIANS WERE PERSECUTED BY THE INQUISITION ALONG WITH THE JEWS AND EVERYBODY ELSE THE ROMAN CHURCH DECIDED DESERVED PERSECUTION, AND IT WAS CHRISTIANS WHO WERE PERSECUTED IN THE GREATEST NUMBERS TOO.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs documents the enormities committed BY THE ROMAN CHURCH AGAINST CHRISTIANS.

The Reformation leaders recognized that the Papacy is the ANTICHRIST. Some Protestants and evangelicals today have either forgotten this or never agreed with it. BIG MISTAKE. The Roman Church has not changed. The Papacy is STILL the biggest Antichrist on the planet, and may very well produce THE Antichrist prophesied in scripture for the end times, at the very least the False Prophet. It has supported local pagan religions for a half century now too instead of calling for a pure Christian testimony among the peoples it has spiritually enslaved, Haiti being a tragic case in point.

This does not mean that all Catholics are false Christians since the gospel is preserved in the Catholic liturgy. What it does mean is that they should seek to find out whether they are truly saved or not, learn more about their history and GET OUT OF THAT FALSE INSTITUTION they grew up in -- or were deceived enough to join. This ex-Catholic priest, Richard Bennett, is a very good source of information about all this. Here's one of his specifically describing his conversion from Catholicism. There are also other good talks on this subject at Sermon Audio. Just pull up "Antichrist" and "Catholicism" on the Sermon Topics page.

The very trappings of the Roman Church (shared in great part by the Eastern Orthodox churches as well) ought to be a clue to its falseness. The expensive Roman trappings, the preservation of the Roman pagan religious symbolism, the enormous wealth of the Vatican, the luxurious life lived by the leadership, the rich robes, the headdress that harks back to the fish god Dagon described in scripture. Alexander Hislop exposed the pagan roots of Catholicism over a century ago, as I reported in a few posts here some time ago.

Scripture says: COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE!

The Sovereignty of God over ... everything.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised. It's hard to understand and hard to accept just how violently many Christians react against the idea that God is sovereign over ALL things, which means of course sovereign over events such as 9/11 and the earthquake in Haiti, both of which I've written about in this blog.

They will say that God IS sovereign ... BUT: ...but not sovereign over earthquakes, ...but not sovereign over jihadists, ...but not sovereign over human will, ...but not sovereign over who is saved (election) etc etc etc.

And here's another puzzler:

We know that God is a sovereign God, but what does that really mean for us in the earth today?

"Really mean?" "For us today?" Huh? Why should it mean anything different for us today than for anyone ever?

And anyone who holds the view of God's complete sovereignty is likely to be severely upbraided and even treated as hardly a Christian at all. Witness what was said against Pat Robertson. The fury of those who object to this idea is little different from that of complete unbelievers. I've been called amazingly bitter names by supposed Christians for defending this perfectly orthodox understanding. I'm called "harsh" and worse for doing this, although my tone as far as I can tell is simply factual and descriptive.

They argue that you can't win people to Christ with such "harshness," ignoring the fact that the discussion isn't about winning people to Christ, and that it is God who is being presented as the "harsh" one, as well as that there is no harsh tone, only words they have trouble accepting. The subject is simply the objective explanation why such events occurred, the subject is not the gospel. We're discussing the plight of Haiti.

Even so, there is plenty of good reason to think people ARE won to Christ by understanding the seriousness of God's wrath we are all under, and won more securely than when the gospel is given without such framing. The idea is that we have to understand that we are rightly condemned before we can rightly value or even understand the meaning of the offer of salvation in Christ. This is how the gospel was often preached in times past, and still is preached in Reformed churches.

For the record, here's a page of links to sermons and articles on various aspects of God's sovereignty.

Here's a similar but shorter list at Monergism dot com.

On this page they list the various sovereignties of God with scriptural sources:

• God is sovereign over the entire universe: Ps 103:19; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11
  
• God is sovereign over all of nature: Ps 135:6-7; Mt 5:45; 6:25-30
  
• God is sovereign over angels & Satan: Ps 103:20-21; Job 1:12
  
• God is sovereign over nations: Ps 47:7-9; Dan 2:20-21; 4:34-35
  
• God is sovereign over human beings: 1 Sam 2:6-7; Gal 1:15-16
  
• God is sovereign over animals: Ps 104:21-30; 1 Ki 17:4-6
  
• God is sovereign over "accidents": Pr 16:33; Jon 1:7; Mt 10:29
  
• God is sovereign over free acts of men: Ex 3:21; 12:25-36; Ez 7:27
  
• God is sovereign over sinful acts of men and Satan: 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1; Gen 45:5; 50:20
  

And here's a brief article by John Piper on 9/11: Why I Do Not Say God Did Not Cause the Calamity . . .

Perhaps I can at least now say that this discussion is so clearly futile that I won't be attempting it again -- not that I won't write about it here as usual, of course.