Featured False Christs

DHK, you wrote: Quote:
"It is worth noting that only hours after his election, Pope Francis sent a message to Rome's Chief Rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni inviting him to the inauguration Mass and telling him: “I very much hope to be able to contribute to the progress that relations between Jews and Catholics have experienced since the Second Vatican Council, in a spirit of renewed collaboration and at the service of a world that can be ever more harmonious with the will of the Creator."

These reports give reason for hope that the new pope may find ways to revitalize both the ecumenical movement and interfaith dialogue."

I found this article about another Chief Rabbi;
On April 26 2004 the autobiography of Eugene Zoli, Chief Rabbi that converted to the Catholic Church in the 20 TH Century.
When the good rabbi was asked why he had given up the Synagogue for the Church, he gave an answer that showed he had a keen understanding of his present position: "But I have not given it up. Christianity is the integration of the Synagogue. The Synagogue was a promise, and Christianity is the fulfillment of that promise. The Synagogue pointed to Christianity: Christianity presupposes the Synagogue. So you see, one cannot exist without the other. What I converted to was the living Christianity."

"Then you believe that the Messiah has come?" the interviewer asked.

"Yes, positively," replied Zolli. "I have believed it many years. And now I am so firmly convinced of the truth of it that I can face the whole world and defend my faith with the certainty and solidity of the mountains."

"But why didn’t you join one of the Protestant denominations, which are also Christian?"

"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: ‘Why wait 1,500 years to protest?’ The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.

 

More RCC propaganda.
The RCC was never recognized as the official church worldwide.
The 16th century Reformation did not have the first "Protestants".
This harlot of a church has been the object of protest ever since its origin in the fourth century. It did not exist before that time. Its existence began when Constantine married Christianity to the state and formed a "church-state" and thus brought "Catholicism" and all of its idolatry (which he introduced) into it. He managed to paganize Christianity while at the same time Christianize the pagans. What a feat! But he never was a true believer in the first place.

The Montanists at that separated and protested against this monstrosity which called itself "The Church" objecting to its corruption--both in doctrine and in morals.
The Waldenses, whom Cardinal Hosius testifies as existing right back to the time of the Apostles, separated from this corrupted organization.
The Petrobussians did likewise.
So did the Catharis.
So did the Albigenses, which Innocent III tried to exterminate in one of the worst cases of genocide in history.

"Protestants" have existed all throughout history.

 

Gee...I wonder why the Catholic Church was accepted like that by the people? Couldn't have anything to do with the church valiantly keeping the scriptures written in a language no modern (at the time) person could comprehend, yet still expecting them to worship and praise God. Couldn't have anything to do with the Church vehemently persecuting anyone it thought was taking a stance against Catholic doctrine.

 

Clarence Larkin was an American Baptist pastor and Bible teacher that lived from 1850 to 1924. He wrote much about dispensationalism and eschatology.
In one of his works on Dispensational Truth (although primarily dealing with premillennialism) he wrote this:

It gives a good view of what the RCC was like in his time and well before his time. He was a historian as well as a theologian.

Note:
The Paulicians, Albigeneses, Waldenses, and other sects, bore testimony to the Premillennial return of the Lord.
These were the groups that remained faithful to the teachings of the Word of God and protested against the RCC whom they felt was the "antichrist."

 

Clarence Larkin was another anti-catholic Jack Chick or a Dan Brown, take your pick. as far as anti Christ goes Jerusalem actually fits the description of the harlot of Babylon, while the Catholic Church does not. Rev 17:1 refers to the “great harlot." How is the nation of Israel, with Jerusalem as her capital often referred to in the Old Testament? As a harlot. Why? Because the relationship between God and Israel was often described in marital terms. Therefore, when Israel would worship false gods, she was described as a harlot. Hosea 9:1, "Rejoice not, O Israel...for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. You have loved a harlot's hire upon all threshing floors." So we see that Israel is often referred to as a harlot in the Old Testament.

Rev 17:9-10 refer to the seven heads (verse 3) of this beast the harlot is riding on as being “seven hills.” This is why a lot of anti-Catholic folks identify the harlot as the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome is a city on seven hills. However, we see that the seven hills pertain to the beast on which the woman is seated, not the woman herself. I believe, as do most scholars I've read - Catholic and Protestant - that the beast is indeed symbolic of Rome and the Roman Empire. But, if Rome is the beast, then that "proves" the woman sitting on the beast is the Catholic Church, right? Not so fast.

Rev 17:18 says this: “And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth." Some argue that the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth is Rome. But, if verse 9, which refers to the beast the woman is seated upon, is referring to the city of Rome; and verse 18, which refers to the harlot, is also referring to the city of Rome, then the beast and the harlot are one and the same. Both are the city of Rome.

But, these are clearly two separate entities, so if one is Rome, then the other has to be another city - Jerusalem makes sense.
Some may say, "Well, of course the beast is Rome - the city on seven hills - but, the harlot is the city within the city, Vatican City, where the Catholic Church is headquartered." The problem is, though, there was no such thing as Vatican City until the early 20th century. When John wrote Revelation, he spoke of the harlot in the present tense: "...IS the great city which HAS dominion over the kings of the earth.” He could not have been referring to Vatican City.

Rev 17:16, "...the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh, and burn her up with fire." Does that mean that Rome will burn Vatican City? (There goes a bunch of tourist revenue!) If the beast is Rome (or the Roman Empire), and the harlot is Jerusalem, then we can see here a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, by Rome, which sacked and burned Jerusalem in 70 A.D. - leaving her naked and burned up with fire - just as the Bible describes the harlot of Babylon.

Finally, the harlot of Babylon is referred to as the "great city," in Rev 17:18 and in a few verses in chapter 18. Yet, Rev 11:9 says, "...and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the GREAT CITY which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified." The "great city" is where their Lord was crucified. Where was Jesus crucified? Jerusalem.

 

This is not the OT. This is apocalyptic Scripture dealing with the end times of the NT and beyond. The great harlot is Rome--well defined as Rome. Look up any Protestant commentary. In this they all will be in agreement: the reformers in particular. Hosea is teaching redemption. It is not applicable here. Learn to rightly divide the Word of truth.
Clarence Larkin lived between 1850 and 1924--hardly your age of "Jack Chick's". That comment just made me laugh, it was so absurd. Larkin was a scholar. His major work "Dispensational Truth" was over 300 pages. Added to that he also wrote: Rightly Dividing the Word, The Book of Daniel, Spirit World, Second Coming of Christ, and A Medicine Chest for Christian Practitioners, a Handbook on Evangelism. None of these were mere pamphlets.

Rome is city on seven hills. Read the rest of the description. That is only one reason, not even the main reason.

No, one is religious Rome (Vatican), and the other political Rome: government. They join together in unholy power. Throughout the ages the king and the pope joined hand in hand.

After 70 A.D. Jerusalem ceased to be. It was sacked and razed by Titus. The Jews were scattered. They ceased to be a nation until 1948. The Book of Revelation was written well after that in 98 A.D.

He was referring to Rome. And he was also in heaven speaking prophetically.

IMO, the beast is the antichrist. The harlot is the religion of the false prophet which would be the pope, the head of the RCC. When the Antichrist, the political leader of the world has no more need for the religious leader of the world, he will dispense with it. This is all future.
The best definitive verse which describes this religion is here:

Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--No other organization has killed so many Christians than the RCC. She has even outdone ISIS, the Taliban and Al Qaeda combined.
But you find the end of both of them in Rev.20:10.

Again, there is no Jerusalem at the time of the writing of the book. It isn't a great city. It has been destroyed. There is no Temple, there is just rubble. There is no one left living in it. It is a desolation.

Nero set fire to the city of Rome, and then blamed it on the Christians. He was a cruel vindictive man. Not all of Rome was destroyed however. It always remained "a great city." Christians were but fodder for the entertainment for the emperor and the crowds of Roman citizens as they were fed to the lions.
In crucifying them, they were crucifying Christ.

John Trapp's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

 

The book by the Baptist historian McGoldrick that demolishes the above statements is titled Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994). McGoldrick examines many groups claimed as "early Baptists" (or early Evangelicals who are "baptistic") such as the Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups and individuals. None of these groups were in fact "early Evangelicals" but were either explicitly Catholic in doctrine or grossly heretical (such as the later Albigenses who denied the Incarnation). Baptists originate in the early 17th century in Holland and England.

 

Spouting Catholic propaganda and lies earns you no brownies points here.
Back up what you say with evidence or retract it. One or the other.
You cannot post things like this without evidence.

 

MvGoldrick is hardly a Catholic apologist. In fact he is a Baptist, presently teaching in a Presbyterian seminary. He has pastored two Baptist churches. He is well regarded by all in the area of church history. So why do you refer to his book as Catholic propaganda?

 

I don't care if the statement was made made by the Pope. It is a false statement. You can't simply post what you make up to believe the truth without backing it up.

Presently Bob Ryan is posting his doctrine of "Investigative Judgement" is both Biblical and not just SDA. He simply can't make that statement without evidence. I demand the same of him as I do of you and Lakeside. Prove it.

 

He was a Baptist Preacher for 6 years. Then he did graduate studies at a Roman Catholic Jesuit University. Now a history professor at a Presbyterian University. All signs point to----> not baptist.

 

I don't have that book by Dr. McGoldrick, but he would have affimed the evangelical beliefs of the Waldensians (who began in the 12th century). They met with William Farel in 1531 because they were sympathetic to the Protestant Reformation. Yet they cannot possibly be considered Baptistic in any way.

The other groups you cited also were not evangelical or Baptistic. So I agree with you there.

If, by the term Baptistic, immersion is key, then true Baptists started in early 17th century England.

By the way, James E. McGoldrick is on the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He, by no means, has any affinity with Roman Catholicism.

 

I think he just came as close to proof as you can come without copying and posting original documents (almost all of which are in a foreign language), and which is something you never do. So why do you get to tell lies (which you probably think are true) without being called out but someone who disagrees with you must present proof? McGoldrick is a recognized expert in his field and this is something no one in an accredited university or seminary would dispute. At this point the burden is on you to come up with proof--proof of the kind that would not be thought ridiculous by anyone other than a Baptist fundamentalist.

 

McCree, did you know Albert Mohler did postgraduate study at St. Meinrad School of Theology, a Benedictine seminary? Does that make him less of a Baptist?

 

Does he teach at a Presbyterian seminary?

 

His B.S., MDiv and PhD all came from Southern Baptist schools. Did McGoldrick ever attend a Baptist school?

 

He lives next door to one. Does that count? :laugh: Actually if you did some checking, you probably could find a course or two that he has taught over on the same side of Lexington Road that he lives on.

 

McGoldricks writings seem to be more Presbyterian than Baptist.

Does McGoldrick even claim to be baptist anymore?

 

SKETCHES OF CHURCH HISTORY

THE WALDENSES


"Thus writes the inquisitor concerning the Waldenses of Bohemia.

The first error of the Waldenses, says he, is, that they affirm the church of Rome is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but an assembly of ungodly men, and that she has ceased being the true church, from the time pope Sylvester, at which time the poison of temporal advantages was cast into the church – That all vices and sins reign in that church, and that they alone live righteously – That they are the true church of Christ, and that the church of Rome is whore mentioned in the Revelation. They despise and reject all the ordinances and statutes of the church, as being too many and very burdensome, They insist that the pope is the head and leader of all error – That the prelates are the scribes and seemingly religious Pharisees – That the popes and their bishops, on account of the wars they foment, are murderers – That our obedience is due to God alone, and not to prelates, which they found on Acts 4:9 - That none in the church ought to be greater than their brethren, according to Matt. 20:25. – That no man ought to kneel to a priest, because the angel said to John "See thou do it not" – that tithes ought not to be given to priests, because there was no use of them in the primitive Church – That the clergy ought not to enjoy any temporal possessions, because it was said in the law, "The tribe of Levi shall have no inheritance with the children of Israel, the sacrifices being their portion" – That it is wrong to endow and found churches and monasteries, and that nothing aught to be bequeathed to churches by way of legacy. They condemn the clergy for their idleness, saying they ought to work with their hands as the apostles did. They reject all the titles of prelates, as pope, bishop, &c. They affirm that no man ought to be forcibly compelled in matters of faith. They condemn all ecclesiastical offices, and the privileges and immunities of the church, and all persons and things belonging to it, such as councils and synods, parochial rights &c. declaring that the observances of the religious are nothing else than pharisaical traditions.

Their third class of errors is as follows. They contemn all approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in the gospel, such as the observation of Candle-mas, Palm-Sunday, the reconciliation of penitents, and the adoration of the cross on Good-Friday. They despise the feast of Easter, and all other festivals of Christ and the saints, and say that one day is as good as another, working upon holy-days, where they can do it without being taken notice of. They disregard the church fasts, alleging Isa.58: "Is this the fast that I have chosen?" They deride and mock at all dedications, consecrations, and benedictions of candles, ashes, palm-branches, oil fire, wax candles, Agnus Del's, churching of Rome, strangers, holy places and persons, vestments, salt and water. They look upon the church built of stone to be no better than a common barn, neither do they believe that God dwells there, quoting Acts 7:48: "God doth not dwell in temples made with hands" – and that prayers offered up in them are of no more efficacy than those which we offer up in our closets, according to Matt.6:6. "But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet." They set no value on the dedication of churches, and call the ornaments of the altar "the sin of the church," saying that it would be much better to clothe the poor than to decorate walls. Of the altar they say, that it is wastefulness to let so much cloth lie rotting upon stones; and that Christ never gave to His disciples vests, or rockets, or mitres. They celebrate the eucharist in their household cups, and say that the corporal, or cloth on which the the host is laid, is no holier than the cloth of their breeches. Concerning lights used in the church, they say that God, who is the true light, stands in no need of light, and that it can have no further use than to hinder the priests from stumbling in the dark. They reject all censings; estimating holy water no better than common water. The images and pictures in the church they pronounce to be idolatrous. They mock at the singing [chanting] in churches, saying that the efficacy is in the words and not in the music. They deride the cries of the laymen, and reject all festival processions, as those of Easter, as well as mournful processions at Rogation-week and at funerals. They laugh at the custom of bringing sick persons on a bench before the altar. They dissuade people from going on a pilgrimage to Rome, and other places beyond sea, tho they themselves pretend to go on pilgrimage, whereas it is only with a design to visit their bishops who live in Lombardy. They express no value for the Lord's sepulcher, nor for those of the saints, and condemn the burying in churches, which they found on Malt. 23:29: "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, because ye build the tombs" and would prefer burying in the field to the church-yard, were they not afraid of the church. They maintain that the offices for the dead, masses for the deceased, offerings, funeral pomps, last wills, legacies, visiting graves, the reading of vigils, anniversary masses, and similar suffrages are of no avail to departed souls. They condemn watching with the dead by night, because of the folly and wickedness which are practiced on those occasions.

They hold all these errors because they deny purgatory, saying that there are only two ways, the one of the elect to heaven, the other of the damned to hell, according to Eccl. ll:3. "Which way soever the tree falleth there it must lie." They contend that a good man stands in no need of intercessions [of the priest], and that they cannot profit those that are wicked – That all sins are mortal, and none of them venial – That once praying in the words of the Lord's prayer is of more efficacy than the ringing of ten bells, yea, than the mass itself. They think that all swearing is sinful, because Christ says, Malt. 5:34, "Swear not at all, but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay." They are against punishing malefactors with death, which they found on Rom.12:19. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay it, saith the Lord." – Thus far the testimony of this inquisitor.

Claudius Seisselius, was archbishop of Turin, towards the close of the fifteenth century, a little before the time of the reformation, and wrote a treatise against the Waldenses. He reports them saying, "The apostolic authority, the faith of Peter, which Christ said should not fail the catholic [that is, the true Church universal] church, and with which church He promises to abide forever, is to be found amongst us who walk after the example of the apostles, and according to our weak measure, observe the commands and ordinances they have given us. We are those of whom the apostle Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Corinthians, "Brethren consider your calling, that ye are not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble but God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and the weak things of this world to confound the things that are mighty; and the base things of this world, and things that are despised, yea, and the things that are not, to bring to nought the things that are." And the same apostle tells us that he was sent to preach the gospel, not in the mightiness of man's wisdom, but in plainness and simplicity; alleging to this purpose what the Lord saith elsewhere, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nought the prudence of the prudent."

Such is the description given us, by the archbishop of Turin, of the Waldenses of Piedmont, before Luther was born, or Calvin thought of, or the term of reformation even mentioned. And yet the Catholics have had the effrontery to ask us, "Where was your religion before Luther?" But let us further attend to the account which he gives us of the articles of their faith. On this particular he thus writes.

"They receive only what is written in the Old and New Testaments. They say that the popes of Rome and other priests have corrupted the Scriptures by their doctrines and glosses – that they owe neither tithes nor first-fruits to the clergy – that the consecration of churches, indulgences, and similar benedictions, are the inventions of false priests. * * They say that we ought not to have any kind of [set form] prayer, except it appear that it was composed by some certain [inspired) author, and approved of God. Their barbs have often preached this doctrine to abolish the service of the glorious Virgin and other saints. They do not think that Christians aught to say the angelical salutation to the mother of God, alleging that it has not the form of a prayer, but a salutation: but that they do only that they may rob the Virgin of this service, saying, that it is not lawful to worship or serve her any more than the rest of the saints. They affirm the blessings of the priests are of no virtue at all. Did not Christ bless the bread in the desert? When the apostles sat down to eat bread, they blessed what was set upon the table. They say there is no need of holy water in the churches, because neither Christ nor His apostles either made it or commanded it: as if we ought to say or do nothing but what we read was done by them. * *"

http://www.asweetsavor.info/history/wald.php