Pulling Down the False God of Catholicism to Save America

Chris Pinto's latest program Tearing Down the Idols is about how to get America out of the devil's clutches, what the Church needs to do, and the message is of course "repent" and that means starting with the Church, as "Judgment begins at the House of God."

 But what does the Church need to repent of? Where are we to start?  He boils it down to the jmessage "Pull down the idols." This is what Gideon did, and the good Kings of Israel. It's where Reformation has to begin.  And God blessed those who threw out the idols and restored the true worship of the true God. 

 So what idols need pulling down?  I wondered where he would go with that, and he went straight to the ecumenical movement, the acceptance of the false god of Catholicism in the Churches.  THAT's what needs to be pulled down first.  Yes! 

I would argue for reinstating the woman's head covering too of course, that would be tearing down the idol of feminism;  and at least praying about throwing out all of the Bibles that have anything from the Westcott and Hort revision in them. Getting any belief in evolution out of the Church is another biggie; at least churches need to be praying against it. And the false theology of the Charismatic Movement the Strange Fire Conference exposed.

But if we start with throwing out the wolf in sheep's clothing known as Roman Catholicism we'd be on the right track for sure. 

Chris has had a lot of good shows lately and I've been remiss in not giving them the notice they deserve.  Go sign up for his Resource Room.   It's worth it.

Obama declares himself Pope of the US and the End Times keep rollin along

The Pope's peace doves were summarily routed in front of a great crowd of witnesses, most of whom probably just rationalized it away, but I can always hope some were jolted awake by it.

Now we have Obama as good as declaring himself Pope of the United States so that he can take to himself the power to enact his own will no matter what the people want or the Congress wants.  This was a Yahoo headline yesterday:   Obama Vows to Flex Presidential Powers.   Except of course they aren't Presidential powers, they're usurped powers.   I guess we can hope there will be some against him who have enough spine to interfere with his power grab, but can we hope much?

Fox News as it often does has the best insight into all this although I hate to agree with such a Catholic organization as Fox News. And today they are quoting a Law Professor at Jesuit Georgetown University, and I tremble to have to agree with him, but he makes a good case against Obama's usurpation of power. Jesuits play all sides of every issue, however, but sometimes there are good Jesuits who just need to have their eyes opened. I hope that for him and for the Catholics at Fox News.

Has President Obama OVERSTEPPED his Constitutional authority?  

Conclusion The President has a personal obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”44 The word “faithfully” is, perhaps, a broad grant of discretion, but it is also a real and important constraint. The President cannot suspend laws altogether. He cannot favor unenacted bills over duly enacted laws. And he cannot discriminate on the basis of politics in his execution of the laws. The President has crossed all three of these lines.

The paragraph is unfortunately a tad Jesuitical in saying that the word "faithfully" grants any discretion whatever rather than underscoring the obvious meaning that he's bound to conscientious effort to execute the law. Only to be expected I suppose. Depressing though in an otherwise good analysis.

Then I found it interesting to read that Rolling Stone approves of this Pope: Pope Francis on Rolling Stone cover which ought to go a long way to taming him for atheists and gays and all others who hate Christianity. Which I'm sure is the whole aim of his service as Antichrist and surrogate of the ancient Roman pagan pontiff (that WAS the title of the pagan high priest of Rome, it's certainly not a Christian title).

God sends seagull and crow to attack Pope's peace doves

Lotta nice symbolic things have been happening with this Pope. 

First he was chosen on 3/13/13 at 7:06 PM local time which makes 6 hours plus 66 minutes or 6:66 if you're into that sort of thing, and I remember thinking it interesting/curious that a couple hours before he was elected a seagull perched on the Sistine Chapel chimney where the smoke rises to announce a new Pope Antichrist. 

Also, back on the day when the previous Pope resigned there was the interesting event of lightning striking St. Peter's basilica. 
And now we get this interesting message:

Pope's Peace Doves Attacked By Crow and Seagull

A seagull and a crow swept down on the doves after they were set free from the Apostolic Palace during the Pope's weekly Angelus prayer.
Tens of thousands of people watched as one dove struggled to break free.
But the crow pecked repeatedly at the other dove. It is not clear what happened to the doves [except that they] flew away.

I'm sure there are those, even Christians, who will dismiss this as mere coincidence and anyone who takes it seriously as superstitious. Seems to me if you know that God is in charge of absolutely everything that happens in this world we should know that it's all from Him and it means something, even if what it means isn't necessarily apparent.

What according to Scripture is the message of the Antichrist going to be to the world?  "Peace, peace" of course. 

1 Thessalonians 5:3:  For when they shall say Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

This Pope is going further than any previous Pope in peeling off whatever Christian veneer has managed to stick to the Roman pagan institution despite its Antichrist nature.  Atheists are now supposedly accepted by God, and there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, or I'm sure the next papal comment on that subject will make that clear if it isn't quite clear yet.   He's also attacked capitalism, the most successful economic system in the world, which is of course connected with Protestantism which they are still trying to bring down.  They've just about succeeded it seems to me.

The Popes take to themselves the right to rule the world, which very few know is on their books, and that includes the right to put to death those who disagree with them, which was the basis for the Inquisition that murdered some 50 million Bible believing Christians plus another 17 million Jews, Muslims, witches and sundry others. 

I could go on but this is supposed to be about the Pope's peace doves being attacked by a couple of ritually unclean birds (according to the Old Testament).  Sure seems like a message from God to me, but who's listening except those who already know the message?

Merry Christmas!

Joy to the world!

The Lord is come!

Let earth receive her King!

 

Nelson Mandela was a Communist Terrorist

I haven't been keeping up on the Nelson Mandela story but this page from the website American Vision gives plenty of information about how the adulation of the man since his recent death is based on ignorance of what he really did. 

He was imprisoned for terrorist acts to which he pleaded guilty, acts that killed women and children, and terrible tortures.  Few seem to know that.  This page is mostly interviews with Peter Hammond, a South African missionary who protested Mandela's policies in office.

A weary word on Christian infighting

There seems to be an escalation of arguments between some Christian ministries these days that takes up an awful lot of time.  I've not been following most of it lately but first became aware of it because of the attacks on Jonathan Cahn over his book The Harbinger which I defended here for many months.  The last thing I posted on that subject was an interview of Cahn by Chris Rosebrough, someone I'd never heard of to that point.  I thought he did a very fair job of interviewing Cahn and bringing out the unfairness of the criticisms against him.  The ministries that attacked Cahn are very respectable ministries you don't really want to criticize in turn, but the attacks were so unfair you have to point out the unfairness.  And I personally believe you have to name the ministries or otherwise all you do is create confusion.

Then I more or less backed away from the controversies.  But it was Chris Rosebrough who hosted the debate between James White and Chris Pinto on his radio show on Wednesday, and looking up more on the debate at You Tube I found a program he did a couple months ago in which he was taking Pinto to task for slandering a friend of his, asking that Pinto apologize.

I don't want to get into all THIS either, but I listened to the first part of that radio show and felt that now Chris Rosebrough is the one being unfair.   He goes on at great length explaining how Chris Pinto had committed this sin of slander and I started getting impatient to hear the evidence.  Then when he played the audio in question it seemed to me he was completely misjudging Pinto's point.  I wish I had access to Pinto's whole show now but I don't, so this is based just on that part I heard.  Pinto described Rosebrough's friend as someone who had gone to Harvard Divinity School and then described Harvard Divinity School as where a certain professor who promoted Christian homosexuality had taught.  Rosebrough took that as insinuating that his friend was gay or supported gay Christianity but all Pinto was saying was that Harvard Divinity School is really not the kind of institution where a professing Christian should seek his education;  it's not the sort of institution where you could expect to get solid Biblical teaching.  I heard nothing more than that.  According to Rosebrough Pinto edited that part of the program afterward, but I didn't hear anything in it along the lines Rosebrough was suggesting anyway.  I couldn't listen past the first few minutes because Rosebrough was going on and on with this misjudgment and I got tired of it, so I hope I didn't miss something I needed to hear.

And now there is the debate between Pinto and White which has required me to be more aware than usual of how heated the Bible controversies can get.  And in this case Pinto is being accused quite offhandedly of being a conspiracy thinker.  As if he was jumping to conclusions from a lack of evidence, which is what that usually means, but in fact the conclusion of conspiracy is clearly based on the facts he's been researching.

I wish I could say Pinto had won the debate.  He did a very nice job of presenting his thinking and his research, but I have to conclude, as I titled my blog post on it at the Bible blog, that Truth lost the debate.  Truth just doesn't win debates these days.  That's just the way it is.  People who win debates are glib and scholarly, they demand certainty and don't have much patience with the kind of probing and inconclusiveness Pinto's research requires.   I concluded that the important issues involving the Bible versions come down to spiritual discernment and I agree with that more and more as I think about it.  That's a virtue that isn't usually evident in scholarly debate.  It isn't evident, period, in the defenders of the Westcott and Hort Greek texts or anything having to do with textual criticism or the modern Bibles.

Waking Up Among Wolves: The Antichrist Pt. 1: The Papacy

When I started this blog I had a few topics in mind I wanted to pursue, such as the woman's head covering of First Corinthians 11.  That and the Bible versions controversy quickly became big enough to get their own separate blogs.  As I was researching various subjects, such as by listening to sermons at Sermon Audio, the topic "Antichrist" kept popping out at me and eventually I decided that was going to be a topic here as well, but at first I didn't have a lot to say about it. 

I mostly had the Futurist idea in mind, that the Antichrist is to be a personality who emerges at the very end before the Lord returns, and I was aware of various candidates from false religions for that title, such as the Imam Mahdi expected by the Muslims, Maitreya expected by the Buddhists and pursued in a more universal form by Benjamin Creme, and the false Messiah expected by the Jews since they rejected the true Messiah, and so on. 

Unlike most Futurists, however, I did appreciate the Protestant Reformers' view of Antichrist as the papal system throughout all history and thought a particularly telling piece of evidence was the Latin title for the Pope that adds up to 666 through its Roman numerals: VICARIVS FILII DEI.  Nevertheless I had the Futurist attitude that the main thing was still the emergence of the major final Antichrist at the very end, which seems awfully close to a lot of us, and the papacy wasn't really an active agency in my mind.

Until I ran across some of Chris Pinto's films at You Tube.  Others, such as ex-priest Richard Bennett, also identify the papacy as Antichrist, but Pinto brings out the ongoing activity of the papacy as Antichrist down the centuries and into the present in a way nobody else I'd seen does.  He also made me aware of the active role of the Jesuits from their origin into the present.

This has had the effect of making the Antichrist himself come alive in a real and immediate way that I wasn't expecting at all.  It's quite startling. 

It's what I mean by the title "Waking Up Among Wolves."  It's like I've been asleep to all this except in the most intellectual abstract way and suddenly it has become quite real, almost "up close and personal."  And of course this latest Pope is almost frenetically pursuing a role that easily defines him as "That man of sin."  He may or may not be the last Pope as an old Catholic prophecy predicted, and even if he is he may not be THE Antichrist, who may be a political figure like Hitler, backed by the Pope, but the development of the qualities of the Antichrist is pretty startling.

Still a "watch and see" situation, only in my mind looming large as it never did before. Kind of like waking up surrounded by wolves.

===================================== Part Two:  Islam