Congratulations to the Devil!

Gosh the devil is clever. I'm in awe. Take a law of God and criminalize it so that anyone who obeys it is a criminal. Man, that's clever. So by obeying God in refusing to validate gay marriage a person is now committing the crime of "discrimination," which is very interesting in itself since the whole idea of equality of treatment was originally Christian. But to accomplish this the devil has also redefined a class of people who are not a race or ethnic group but people who happen to share a sexual aberration, which God calls sin, turned them into a legitimate Minority Group which must be protected by law from "discrimination," and by such Word Magic has gained enough popular support to deprive Christians of their American rights and push us into a corner, which is what his aim was all along.

Let's see, he did the same thing centuries ago when he got the Bible outlawed. And before that he got the Romans to call us atheists for refusing to bow down to Caesar. Man did they persecute us then! But he obviously hadn't run out of tricks with those. Gosh this latest ploy is clever! Congratulations to the devil! I have to admit he's won, he's got us where he wants us. I wonder what he plans to do to us next.

Oh worry not.  God is still in charge and this sort of thing has a way of driving His people closer to Him which is the best possible thing that could happen. What the devil means for ill God always means for good and getting us detached from this world can only be a good thing.

A Glimmer of Hope that the Church can still make a difference in politics?

I just woke up (it's 2 AM) with the glorious thought in my mind that Houston's I Stand Sunday did get God's ear and that's why conservatives did so well on Election Tuesday.  I'm so slow these days, so used to earnest gatherings of Christians not making a difference, those ecumenical gatherings I keep talking about in particular. 

But it's begun to dawn on me that maybe Houston did make a difference.  I've been getting emails from conservative Christian groups that emphasize how big a victory this last election really was, voting in not just a huge number of Republicans but the most conservative Republicans and rejecting the liberals and RINOs.   The call to pledge to vote that was made at I Stand Sunday must have made a big difference.

Can we actually say that the Church stood and God brought the victory?  I'm slow to be sure of it even now but it's a glimmer and I want it to be true and I want it to continue if it's true.  Can we yet be that terrible army with banners that God leads to more and more victories if we hang together?

I'm so used to being disappointed these days it's a strange feeling to have something to cheer about, so used to crying over the terrible shape the country is in it's a strange feeling to cry for joy.  I so want to cheer for this and believe that the Church did do what the Church is supposed to do, and did it despite whatever imperfections we have -- and whatever they are the Lord graciously overlooked them. 

Is even revival possible then? 

I'm scared of being happy because things have been so bad lately but I am happy, and hopeful. Such an odd feeling.

The Oily Voice of the Serpent; and Jesuits: The Engineer Corps of Hell

Apparently The Christian Post is a Romanist publication, or perhaps an ecumenical effort. They have a Romanist columnist in any case. He wrote a piece back in October in anticipation of Reformation Day on the 31st, in which he pretends we're just all one big happy church family, Protestants and Romanists together, which of course means he subsumes all churches under Rome. He even pretends the Reformation was a welcome event for the RCC, a "renewal" of necessary but lost doctrine. But he treats Ignatius Loyola as somebody to learn from rather than the founder of the bloodthirsty Jesuits who masterminded the Counter Reformation, the Inquisition, and persecutions of true Christians for centuries:

He calls himself the The Public Philosopher:

Public Philosopher

Martin Luther, Ignatius Loyola, and Protestant Reformation

By Paul de Vries

Paul de Vries portrait
The Reformation was a precious but complex step in Church history, where the beloved Biblical teachings of the amazing grace of God were renewed. We are all beneficiaries – Protestant, Roman Catholic, and everyone else. What can we learn from Martin Luther, Ignatius Loyola and others from that era – and especially from the Living Lord now – so that we can approach this 500th anniversary with a renewed awareness of the Lord and his purposes for his whole Church?

There you have it, the "whole Church" which of course pretends we're all Christians, and course means means all of us under Rome.

I wonder how many fall for that oily tone of his, that "precious but complex step in Church history," by which the "beloved Biblical teachings of the amazing grace of God were renewed." I wonder how many are deceived by such a disgusting saccharine lie. The Roman Church has never rescinded the anathemas (curses) of their Council of Trent against all the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, nor have they closed their Office of the Inquisition, which was still racking up murders in the 19th century and probably more recently than that; nor have they ever acknowledged the actual enormities of the Inquisition. They play down the numbers, and Pope John Paul blamed the "people" for the enormities, not the papacy or the Church leadership which was the real source.

The Jesuits were called "The Engineer Corps of Hell" by Edwin A. Sherman who wrote a book by that title in the 19th century. They were known for their subversive activities against all the nations of Europe and had been kicked out of all of them many times. John Adams said of the Jesuits, "If ever any congregation of men could merit eternal perdition on earth and in hell ... it is this company of Loyola."

More later.

Futurist Premillennial Dispensational End Times thinking actually creates a smoke screen for the Antichrist, who has already been revealed

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the end times scenarios though I do believe we must be in the last of the last days.  For whatever reason none of the eschatological systems is completely convincing to me although parts of some of them seem to make sense. 

Over the last few years I've become most persuaded by the historicist views of the Protestant Reformers, and certainly most persuaded by their view of the Antichrist as the papacy which they argue so well, and that gives me some foundation for rejecting other systems. 

Today I read this from a Bible prophecy teacher, Dr. David Reagan and object to it because it contradicts the view of the Reformers:

I devote an entire chapter to surveying different attempts to identify the Antichrist — all of which are fruitless since the Bible clearly teaches that we cannot know the identity of the Antichrist before the day of the Lord, which begins with the onset of the Tribulation (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

This is the passage he says tells us we cannot know the Antichrist yet:

2 Thess. 2:2-4 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Later addition:  Dr. Reagan is wrong to say that we cannot know the identity of the Antichrist before the day of the Lord.  What the passage actually says is the opposite, that the day of the Lord won't come until after we know his identity.  The order of things is 1) the falling away, also called the Great Apostasy, 2) the revelation of the man of sin, also called the Antichrist, which could occur simultaneously with 1), and 3) it is after these things that the day of Christ will come, but it doesn't say how long afterward, just that it can't happen until after the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin. /end addition.


Aside from that, Dr. Reagan's expectation of a future Antichrist is true only from within the Futurist eschatological system.  However, all those he is answering are also within the Futurist system, as well as all those he agrees with.  Most of Protestant Christianity is busy expecting a future Antichrist.

But from the Reformers' point of view the Antichrist was revealed back in 606 when the papacy was made official after the fall of the Roman Empire, which couldn't have occurred until then. That is, the Antichrist couldn't have been revealed before that. The Pope put himself in the seat of God himself, taking the title of the Holy Spirit, "vicar of Christ," and he "sits in the temple of God" which is simply in the midst of the people of God who are the temple of God according to the New Testament. This becomes clearer the more you know about the powers the papacy has taken to itself over the centuries, usurping all the titles of God:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The falling away was the apostasy of the Roman Church which increased over the centuries during which the institution was presided over by one Antichrist after another.

It was this apostasy and the usurpation of the role of God Himself by the papacy that eventually led the Reformers to recognize the Pope as Antichrist, repudiate the whole system and found the Reformation on the Bible alone.

If this understanding is correct, and as I say I've been persuaded of it, the Futurist system of eschatology actually serves to create a cover for the papal Antichrist and divert attention to irrelevancies.  The Antichrist is here already.  The Reformers knew it and the sad thing is that the entire Protestant world has been led away from recognizing him. And in fact many have accepted the RCC as a Christian church, and given the Antichrist himself the cloak he needs for his stealthy work.  

And guess what:  It was a couple of Jesuits who invented the futurist system:

This is from Wikipedia:

To counter the Protestant historicist interpretation of Daniel and Revelation,[3] Roman Catholic Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) wrote a 500 page commentary on the Book of Revelation. This commentary established the futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy.[4] ... The futurist view was first proposed by two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza and Francisco Ribera. ... today it is probably most readily recognized. Books about the "rapture" by authors like Hal Lindsey, and the more recent Left Behind novels (by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye) and movies, have done much to popularize this school of thought.

The Jesuits have been working indefatigably ever since Ignatius founded their order, to bring down Protestantism and reestablish the Pope as ruler over the nations. They've plotted against Protestant monarchs and they've infiltrated the government of the United States and we've all been blind to it. They present themselves as helpful little lambs but there they are in all the places of power, in their own Jesuit universities where they can influence the next generation, at the right hand of political leaders where they can influence the running of the whole country.

How clever of them to invent an eschatology that has captured the attention of most of Protestant Christendom, getting us to focus on a future personage rather than the one who has already been revealed, undermining the Reformers' hard-won recognition of the Pope as the Antichrist.

Jesus can indeed come at any moment.

Pinto on Rome in America

Still hoping to get up a series on the history of Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, here's a link to Chris Pinto's radio show for the 3rd, Elton John, the Pope, and Fox's Book of Martyrs, in which most pertinently he reads from the Preface to an 1833 edited edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is essentially a warning to America because the RCC wolf is now loose in our midst. (Let me add again: it's the papacy that is the subject of such warnings, not ordinary Catholics who don't usually know much about the papacy or RCC history.) 

The Colonies had laws that severely restricted Roman Catholicism from any political or other influence in America, but with the First Amendment they got freedoms which gave them free rein, and which they immediately took advantage of.   Would that all those who call themselves Protestants made themselves aware of this history we've been deprived of.  It should help to wake us up. 

Wishing I Stand Sunday could prevail with God.

I wish I could say something really positive and supportive of the I Stand Sunday effort. I did watch it, there were many solid Christian messages preached, including the need to be bold in these days, willing to sacrifice, the importance of repentance, how it begins with the Church and is the Church's responsibility. There was also mention of revival, how God can turn a nation in a moment's time. They had an altar call and many of the pastors came forward to pray. All very moving really. I just wish I could believe it could accomplish anything.

They showed video of the business owners who have been persecuted by the gay marriage people, fined, driven out of business. I don't get why that can't already have been turned back because it's so obviously against the First Amendment. Why do we need complex legal actions in the case of a clear violation of the Constitution?  The Houston mayor withdrew her subpoenas in the face of all this uproar over it, which is great, but did the message come through to her that her action was illegal or is she just waiting for another opportunity?  If they realized it's illegal would they stop, however, or don't they care if it's illegal, all that matters is their own agenda? I suspect that in the highest places of the land they don't care if it's illegal, I'm not sure at the level of a mayor. One thing that's clear, though, is that their disqualification of a huge percentage of the signers of a petition against her "civil rights" ordinance was illegal, and she must know that.

The illegality starts in the Supreme Court that has been passing down twisted misinterpretations of the First Amendment for decades now, and slapped down the will of the people all across the nation where they have made their views of gay marriage known; but it's all accepted as if it's legal because, well, they're the Supreme Court.  With such a dysfunctional system what is anyone to do?  It makes no sense to appeal legally to a court that is clearly rotten and perverse, yet that's all anyone does or thinks possible to do.  Not that I have an alternative, except resistance, and that always works against the resistor in a tyrannical system of government.

So it's nice all these pastors got together to exhort one another to stand firm in the evil days, but I wish we'd do something to overthrow those evil illegal laws and I don't see why we can't.  Except for the force the government would bring against us of course, more lawlessness.

The call for revival is so sad it seems to me, because so futile.  Yes, of course Catholics were involved and accepted last night but we won't have revival as long as that is the case.  There are many Catholics in politics these days and some of them are great people and great Americans and great politicians.  One of them, Rick Santorum gave a filmed greeting to the group.  Another speaker mentioned Roman Catholicism in passing.  I think I could vote easily for Alan Keyes or Allen West for President, but they're both Catholics.  Then there's Ben Carson, another black man I also love as a political voice, not a Catholic but a member of another really iffy cult.  I guess I could vote for him if I could vote for the others.   Mitt Romney is a nice guy with some acceptable political views, but his cult is the weirdest one of them all. What has happened to Protestant America?

God isn't going to bless a mixed gathering of religions that has a spiritual purpose as the I Stand Sunday gathering had.  I can't say God told me so, and I can't point to really clear evidence, I'd just hope there would be enough appreciation for what the Reformation did to show the folly of it in the case of Roman Catholicism. I would also mention that there's been lots of ecumenical prayer for the nation over the last decades and especially since 9/11 and I don't think anyone can say God has smiled on any of that prayer.  I'm talking about Bush's prayer meeting in the National Cathedral right after the twin towers attack, including an RCC priest, a Muslim leader and I forget who else; and I'm also talking about yearly gatherings of ecumenical groups in the D.C. area for God to bless the nation, and what's the fruit of all that, pray tell?  How do people explain it to themselves that they pray with such good intent and such fervor and things get worse?  Surely it's obvious things have been getting worse, isn't it?  How do you explain it?  Islam is more influential and threatening than ever, growing so year by year by year since 9/11.  How do you explain that?  

And I'd mention the fact that we have so many Catholics in office too, which would make the earliest settlers of the nation weep since they came here specifically to try to head off the influence of the RCC in the new land, which had caused so much grief for Protestants in Europe. Our Catholics don't seem to be anything but good Americans, and especially the conservatives we Protestants love and support, but then we have Boehner and Pelosi inviting the Pope to speak to Congress next year and that should ring loud bells in a true Protestant's head.  They seem to have ear plugs in though.

How do you explain all that?

Has God deserted us, is that the explanation, just not hearing our prayers?  Well, many recognize that the nation is under God's judgment, but the point of the prayer meetings is to repent in the hope He'll turn back from judgment.  If we believe in an omnipotent God who is intimately involved in human affairs it seems to me that should have happened by now.  Why hasn't it?

That's what I've been thinking and praying about in recent posts, and the ecumenical effect is number one on the list that I keep coming up with to explain why we haven't had revival.  Leonard Ravenhill's passion alone through the last decades of the last century should have produced revival but nothing, silence from heaven and the continued proliferation of sin and threats to our wellbeing and corrupt politics.

I've come to think that Ravenhill may have compromised his own plea for revival with his acceptance of Roman Catholicism and of the charismatic movement.   That's my theory.  I need an explanation and that's the one that comes to mind.  And if it explains his failure to light the spark it must also explain why the wood has remained wet ever since despite efforts by many to reach God's ears.

Of course God is sovereign and we can't force Him to act, it just seems that He should have acted already in our present condition, and if He hasn't there must be a reason for it.  Of course the condition we are in includes deviations within the churches for starters, taking the word "church" to refer to any body that claims the name of Christ.  That would include "churches" that have been swayed to liberal doctrines, deny the truth of parts of the Bible, accept evolution and even in some cases abortion and gay rights and gay marriage.  Would God give us revival when there are so many "Christian" churches that hold such views?  The only revival He could give would have to change such views, but while revival reforms people I'm not sure it's ever done so to that degree.  And those are things we know from the Bible alone are violations, to be dealt with by solid Bible preaching.

Well, I've pondered a lot of the reasons in previous posts and still hope to get up a permanent Page where I try to be exhaustive though that isn't happening yet.  But here I just want to say I don't think the earnest prayers at the I Stand Sunday gathering are going to bear fruit any more than all the previous earnest prayers have done.  Something else has to happen.  There are people in the camp who have taken accursed things from Ai, that's why Ai has been able to defeat us.  That's the thought anyway.  Get rid of the accursed things, the pagan things the church has been accepting, and God may see fit to bless us after all.  Seems to me that would involve churches that have not done this denouncing those that have, making a public issue of it.

There's really not much chance churches are going to repudiate all those nice Catholics though, is there?  Or that nice lady pastor, who is also in violation of Biblical truth, no matter how good a preacher she is.  And all the other churches that have women pastors and elders, and there are many of them.  We shouldn't have to argue about what the Bible says about this, it's all too clear. 

But that's just the start of the problems.  There were calls to repentance at the I Stand Sunday gathering, though mostly personal repentance, which of course is necessary.  But we need to name the sins of the churches and repent as churches and denounce them as churches.  That's how I'm reading the problem, that's why I think we aren't having revival and can't have revival until this is done. 

I'm nobody of course, just an opinionated blogger out here in nowhere land thinking about these things.  And I'm a woman and I have no authority over anybody.  All I can do is hope that if I'm right about any of it others will pick it up and spread it and exhort the churches to it. 

Please Lord.  We SO desperately need revival.

So, Houston, are you prepared for a crash landing?

So we're getting some action.  That's what I wanted isn't it?  Pastors uniting behind the Houston pastors as well as behind the Christian businesses who are being harassed by gay rights activists.  So they've organized a gathering today for the purpose, called I Stand Sunday at 6 PM Central time.

For some years now there has also been a yearly gathering of pastors in protest of the IRS' requirement that they can't make political statements from the pulpit, or lose their tax-exempt status,  called Pulpit Freedom Sunday.  In fact, if I understood correctly, it was this year's Pulpit Freedom Sunday in early October that was the provocation for the Houston mayor's subpoena.

All this sounds good, you'd think it would make me happy, but all it does is raise questions in my mind.  Are Catholics part of these events?  They are advertised as "nondenominational" which often suggests something ecumenical, and if that is the case the whole project is doomed.

But another problem is that one of the Houston Five pastors is a woman.  I cringe at having to object but I have to object.  No wonder the churches are having a hard time, we're under judgment.  You can't have women pastors, that's against God's word.  You can't be a woman pastor and you can't stand with a woman pastor.  I suspect she's very gifted for what she considers to be her calling, it looks like she has a big Hispanic church, and she is after all one of the ones who protested the gay mayor's ordinance and got herself subpoenaed, so how can I even think of objecting? 

I've been writing for some time about how we can't have revival, God isn't going to bless us, if we are in disobedience to Him, and that's the case with allowing women pastors.  Isn't that only too obvious?  But they are having these meetings and expecting God to bless them when they are in disobedience?  Or are they even appealing to God in any serious way? Looks like a lot of fleshly work from here, and that certainly can't succeed.

I don't know if Catholics or other nonChristian bodies are included, so far I haven't found any information on that, but that would certainly be another reason for the failure of any such gathering.  Do you really think you can push back the gay agenda while you're actively denying God?

I'll try to watch the gathering today, wish I could think better of its prospects.