Why are there so many Denominations?!?!

Interesting and brief article on why there are so many denominations, with an excerpt:

 

This seems silly to me. Each 'denomination' has it's own 'take', it's own particular doctrines that conflict with other 'denominations'. Somebody has to be wrong. And many, logically, hold to some-kind of heresy and false doctrine.

 

That is ridiculous. You've been reading too many Jack Chick booklets.

 

Agreeing with Jude here.

 

If having many denominations means that more people are able to let God come into their lives, then by all means, let's have many denominations.

Obviously, most or all of them must be wrong on some things.

But salvation doesn't require perfection. It requires accepting God and doing His will.

 

Jer 3:8-9 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.


Ezek 16:14-15 14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.
15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.


Ezek 16:28-29 28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.
29 Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied herewith.


Hosea 4:15 15 Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear, The LORD liveth.


During the old covenant, the Lord referred to the nation of Israel as a harlot when she had illicit relationships with her surrounding nations, and their gods. So also, in the new covenant, those who called themselves Christians, but had illicit relationships with the kings of the earth, and their gods are playing the harlot. The Church of Rome is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS, because she was the first " Christian " institution to apostatize and have relations with the kings of the earth, mixing pagan practices and worship with Christianity. This policy she also continues today, thus she is ever present at the UN and has ambassadors from virtually every nation tending to her.


Rev 17:1-2 1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.


Rev 17:5 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.


"63. Then came Constantine, the best imperial representative of the new paganism, and the most devout worshiper of the sun as the supreme and universal deity, with the avowed purpose, as expressed in his own words, "First to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity." In Constantine the new paganism met its ideal, and the New Platonism - the apostate, paganized, sun-worshiping form of Christianity - met its long-wished-for instrument. In him the two streams met. In him the aspiration of Elagabalus, the hope of Ammonius Saccas and Clement, of Plotinus and Origen, and the ambition of the perverse-minded, self-exalted bishops, were all realized and accomplished - a new, imperial, and universal religion was created. 64. Therefore, "the reign of Constantine the Great forms one of the epochs in the history of the world. It is the era of the dissolution of the Roman Empire; the commencement, or rather consolidation, of a kind of Eastern despotism, with a new capital, a new patriciate, a new constitution, a new financial system, a new, though as yet imperfect, jurisprudence, and, finally, a new religion." - Milman. 65. The epoch thus formed was the epoch of the papacy; and the new religion thus created was the PAPAL RELIGION." ( THE GREAT EMPIRES OF PROPHECY A. T. Jones )


Constantine brought Sun worshippers, and Christians together, forming a new religion of the two. Although he claimed to become a Christian, he did so for the above purpose, and never claimed to abandon the worship of the sun. The result being the formation of the Church of Rome, and the exaltation of the day of the Sun as the Christian Sabbath.


"In A.D. 321, to please the bishops of the Catholic Church, he issued an edict commanding judges, townspeople, and mechanics to rest on Sunday. Yet in this also his paganism was still manifest, as the edict required rest on "the venerable day of the sun," and "enjoined the observance, or rather forbade the public desecration, of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum, or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title, Dies Solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians." - Schaff.


"The same tenacious adherence to the ancient god of light has left its trace, even to our own time, on one of the most sacred and universal of Christian institutions. The retention of the old pagan name of "Dies Solis,' or 'Sunday,' for the weekly Christian festival, is in great measure owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects, pagan and Christian alike, as the 'venerable day of the sun.'... It was his mode of harmonizing the discordant religions of the empire under one common institution." - Stanley.


Accordingly, now "his coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ, on the other the figure of the sun-god, and the inscription, 'Sol invictus' (the unconquerable sun), as if he could not bear to relinquish the patronage of the bright luminary which represented to him, as to Augustus and to Julian, his own guardian deity." - Stanley.


The Church of Rome is a political organization. She is that apostate form of Christianity which first forsook the power of the Holy Spirit, in favor of the power of the state, for the furtherance of her goals. These things she accomplished by having adulterous relations with the kings of the earth. She is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS, and as such, of course she has children. Those Protestant denominations which broke away from her, but also leaned on the power of the state to enforce their dogmas, were acting the part of her daughters. It was not until the establishment of the USA, that many Protestant denominations fully broke away from the Romish idea of combining church and state.


"In order to avoid wars and persecutions over religion, the founders of the United States tried a bold experiment. They allowed FREEDOM OF RELIGION by separating church from state, so that one could be a full member of civil society without having to belong to a particular church. Colonies that had established churches gradually ended that practice so that churches were no longer built by the state, nor were their ministers paid by the state. Churches began to rely on the voluntary contributions of their members, which resulted in more vigorous churches." (Groliers)


Any Christian denomination that wants to use the power of the state to enforce or further it's goals, is a daughter of Babylon, the Mother of Harlots. She is the originator of this mind set. Rome, in it's pagan, and papal form, is the fourth metal, and beast of the book of Daniel chapters four,and seven. As the scriptures point out, she will be with us until Christ returns, destroying the kingdoms of this earth and setting up His literal and everlasting kingdom in this world.


Dan 2:33-35 33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Rome is rising again, and many Protestant churches are returning to their Mother. These things must happen before Christ returns. The second beast of Revelation will be formed when the worlds religions, headed by the Church of Rome, once again unite with the state on a worldwide basis and use the state to enforce their dogma. This dogma will be the forced worship spoken of in the book of Rev. Chap. thirteen. I leave you with the following quote.

"When Christianity conquered Rome the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church, the title and vestments of the pontifex maximus, the worship of the Great Mother and a multitude of comforting divinities, the sense of supersensible presences everywhere, the joy or solemnity of old festivals, and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony, passed like maternal blood into the new religion, and captive Rome captured her conqueror. The reins and skill of government were handed down by a dying empire to a virile papacy; the lost power of the broken sword was rewon by the magic of the consoling word; the armies of the state were replaced by the missionaries of the Church moving in all directions along the Roman roads; and the revolted provinces, accepting Christianity, again acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome. Through the long struggles of the Age of Faith the authority of the ancient capital persisted and grew, until in the Renaissance the classic culture seemed to rise from the grave, and the immortal city became once more the center of summit of the world's life and wealth and art. When, in 1936, Rome celebrated the 2689th anniversary of her foundation, she could look back upon the most impressive continuity of government and civilization in the history of mankind. May she rise again."(CAESAR AND CHRIST, A history of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from theri beginnings to A.D.325. By Will Durant-1944)

Oh, by the way, I do not know who Jack Chick is. The name sounds familiar, but I've never heard him preach, or read anything of his.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Jack Chick has quite a following among the atheists, who find his paranoid rants agains almost everything to be hilarious.

Most Christians think he could do more for Christianity by converting to Islam.

I suspect I could get banned here for linking to much of his stuff, but you can find examples by doing a search on his name.

 

This is the 'blandest' definition of:

The fact that disagreements exist and people part company over them does not neccesarily mean that either one of them is 'wrong' when it comes to 'essentials'...

Most 'breaks' are over small issues that do not directly affect Salvation...

Even the biggie between Armenianism and Calvinism over eternal security doesn't, IMHO, directly affect Salvation because if a person is saved today and then dies... He goes to Heaven!

If the Armenian believes backsliding out of grace is possible and that person tommorows murders someone and is killed resisting arrest. And, goes to a hell prepared for the devil and his angels...

Or, if the Calvinist believes, because of the act of murder, the person was never saved...

It doesn't really matter, does it? Either way the person was lost to Jesus...

Humans have a predilection to having to be proven wrong or right, and fighting over it...

{Might be a 'Pride' thing?}

With eternity at stake, as it were, it doesn't surprise me that the fights can get so heated...

 

This seems silly to me. Each 'denomination' has it's own 'take', it's own particular doctrines that conflict with other 'denominations'. Somebody has to be wrong. And many, logically, hold to some-kind of heresy and false doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]Please understand I did not write the above. It comes from the article I posted and I do not agree with everything the article says. I posted it merely as a resource that might be helpful in some ways.

I'm on another list where most people know that we do not agree with every thing in a particular article we may post, so I forgot that is not true here on the BB.

I guess I should clarify that every time I post something like this, but I will probably forget to do that anyway.

 

Maria said:

It would be interesting to hear what the LDS has to say about the "Reorganized" LDS as well as other LDS splinter groups that are out there - when they question us about denomination!

 

Amen, Brother The Galatian -- Preach it!

http://www.chick.com/

But this doesn't seem to be working today.

 

Kamoroso
"The Church of Rome is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS, because she was the first " Christian " institution to apostatize and have relations with the kings of the earth, mixing pagan practices and worship with Christianity."
"
Using that definition of MOTHER OF HARLOTS would mean that the Greek-Orthodox Church and not the Roman Catholic Church is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS!

"This policy she also continues today, thus she is ever present at the UN and has ambassadors from virtually every nation tending to her. "
''
Yep the modern nation of Greece, that has the Orthodox Church as it's official state Church.

"Constantine brought Sun worshippers, and Christians together, forming a new religion of the two. Although he claimed to become a Christian, he did so for the above purpose, and never claimed to abandon the worship of the sun. The result being the formation of the Church of Rome, and the exaltation of the day of the Sun as the Christian Sabbath."
''
Constantine did not operate from Rome, but from Greece. Clearing up misunderstandings like this is fun.

 

You are mistaken mioque. You rightly said, that Constantine operated from Greece. However, he was not the Emperor of Greece, he was the Emperor of the Roman Empire. The split that now exists between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church , did not exist in the days of Constantine. The misunderstanding is on your part mioque, not on the part of the historians which were quoted, A T Jones, Milman, Schaff, Stanley, and Durant.


Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

It would be interesting to hear what the LDS has to say about the "Reorganized" LDS as well as other LDS splinter groups that are out there - when they question us about denomination! </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, Dan! My name is Marcia, not "Maria." But that could have been a typo, so you can get away with it this time.

You're so right. They ignore the Reorganized LDS and all those splinter groups -- like the polygamous groups. In fact, since the Mormon founders taught polygamy was necessary, the polygamous groups are in a way more faithful to the original Mormon teachings (which is what they claim) than the modern LDS church (which those groups consider to be in apostacy).

 

"The split that now exists between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church , did not exist in the days of Constantine. "
"
The split was caused by a theological squabble (the Filioque dispute) between a later emperor of the Roman (Byzantine) empire and the bishop of Rome. Again pinpointing the MOH in the camp of the Greek Orthodoxy instead Rome.

"The misunderstanding is on your part mioque, not on the part of the historians which were quoted, A T Jones, Milman, Schaff, Stanley, and Durant."
''
A number of whom are (in my professional opinion as the holder of a doctorate in churchhistory) quacks that did not deserve their degrees.

 

I can understand you mioque, wanting to include the Greek Orthodoxy as a part of the MOH. Since for so many centuries the two were linked together. However, as already stated, the Greek Orthodoxy did not exist as a separate entity until well after the times we are discussing. The Greek Orthodoxy has never made the same claims to power that the Church of Rome has. Nor is she anywhere near as involved with the politics of this world, as the Church of Rome is, and has been. Here are some more quotes for you mioque, what think ye of these historians. I wonder, are there any historians you could quote, that support your view. Seeing that you have a doctorate in church history?


20. The next year (A.D. 325) Constantine convened at Nice the first general council of the Catholic Church, presided over its deliberations, and enforced its decrees. The following year (A.D. 326) he went to Rome to celebrate in that city the twentieth year of his accession to the office of emperor, and while there, in the month of April, and wholly in jealous tyranny, he had his son Crispus murdered. Crispus was his eldest son, who had assisted in his wars, especially with Licinius, and had proved himself an able commander. He commanded the fleet at the siege of Byzantium, and after the battle the names of Constantine and Crispus were united in the joyful acclamations of their Eastern subjects. This excited the jealousy of Constantine, who soon began to slight Crispus, and bestow imperial favors upon his younger son, Constantius, who was but a mere boy. Constantine pretended that Crispus had entered into a conspiracy against him, and Oct. 21, 325, he issued an edict restoring the order of delators, after the manner of Tiberius and Domitian. "By all the allurements of honors and rewards, he invites informers of every degree to accuse without exception his magistrates or ministers, his friends or his most intimate favorites, protesting, with a solemn asseveration, that he himself will listen to the charge." - Gibbon.


ROME - THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
If the mutual flattery of Constantine and the bishops had concerned only themselves, it would have been a matter of very slight importance indeed; but this was not so. Each side represented an important interest. Constantine merely represented the State, and the bishops the church; and their mutual flattery was only the covering of a deep-laid and far-reaching scheme which each party was determined to work to the utmost, for its own interests. "It was the aim of Constantine to make theology a branch of politics; it was the hope of every bishop in the empire to make politics a branch of theology." - Draper.


“Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to the Heretics: Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by
453 means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness, fit subjects for the fabulous follies of the stage; and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement; ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves, demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one’s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one’s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure? “Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies; and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. LET THOSE OF YOU, THEREFORE, WHO ARE DESIROUS OF EMBRACING THE TRUE AND PURE RELIGION, TAKE THE FAR BETTER COURSE OF ENTERING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND UNITING WITH IT IN HOLY FELLOWSHIP, WHEREBY YOU WILL BE ENABLED TO ARRIVE AT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. In any case the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with, and
454 mar the felicity of, our present times; I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. FOR IT IS AN OBJECT WORTHY OF THAT PROSPERITY WHICH WE ENJOY THROUGH THE FAVOR OF GOD, TO ENDEAVOR TO BRING BACK THOSE WHO IN TIME PAST WERE LIVING IN THE HOPE OF FUTURE BLESSING, FROM ALL IRREGULARITY AND ERROR TO THE RIGHT PATH, FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT, FROM VANITY TO TRUTH, FROM DEATH TO SALVATION. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded (as before said) that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings; I mean all the houses of prayer (if such be worthy of the name) which belong to heretics, AND THAT THESE BE MADE OVER WITHOUT DELAY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering, in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public.”


5. Some of the penal regulations of this edict “were copied from the edicts of Diocletian; and this method of conversion was applauded by the same bishops who had felt the hand of oppression, and had pleaded for the rights of humanity.” - Gibbon.

38. In the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Empire, Justinian holds the like place that Constantine and Theodosius occupy in the establishment of the Catholic Church. "Among the titles of greatness, the name 'Pious' was most pleasing to his ears; to promote the temporal and spiritual interests of the Church was the serious business of his life; and the duty of father of his country was often sacrificed to that of defender of the faith." - Gibbon.


41. In the year 532, Justinian issued an edict declaring his intention "to unite all men in one faith." Whether they were Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, all who did not within three months profess and embrace the Catholic faith, were by the edict "declared infamous, and as such excluded from all employments both civil and military; rendered incapable of leaving anything by will; and all their estates confiscated, whether real or personal." As a result of this cruel edict, "Great numbers were driven from their habitations with their wives and children, stripped and naked. Others betook themselves to flight, carrying with them what they could conceal, for their support and maintenance; but they were plundered of what little they had, and many of them inhumanly massacred." - Bower.


54. Belisarius dispatched to Justinian the news of his victory. "He received the messengers of victory at the time when he was preparing to publish the Pandects of the Roman law; and the devout or jealous emperor celebrated the divine goodness and confessed, in silence, the merit of his successful general. Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, he proceeded, without delay, to the full establishment of the Catholic Church. Her jurisdiction, wealth, and immunities, perhaps the most essential part of episcopal religion, were restored and amplified with a liberal hand; the Arian worship was suppressed, the Donatist meetings were proscribed; and the Synod of Carthage, by the voice of two hundred and seventeen bishops, applauded the just measure of pious retaliation." - Gibbon.


THE CODE OF OUR LORD
THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN.
SECOND EDITION.
BOOK 1.

TITLE 1.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE
CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NNE
SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.

We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.

(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.


Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Kamoroso
"However, as already stated, the Greek Orthodoxy did not exist as a separate entity until well after the times we are discussing."
''
And neither does the Roman Catholic Church. Both Greek-Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism originate at the same time. The moment of the schism between East and West taking place in 1054. Prior to that Catholicism and Orthodoxy were 1 church. And the city of Constantinopel was the heart of the fusion between Christian Church and Roman Empire not Rome.

"The Greek Orthodoxy has never made the same claims to power that the Church of Rome has. Nor is she anywhere near as involved with the politics of this world, as the Church of Rome is, and has been."
''
That's not because of any lack of trying, that's because threats from the East (Islam, Mongols, Turks) hamstringed any and all attempts by Eastern-Orthodoxy to even claim be a factor in politics.

"what think ye of these historians."
''
Edward Gibbon died in 1794, a number of his conclusions are considered questionable, his writings aren't a primary source document and were written before current standards of historical scholarship developed (allthough he did help set them). All in all not the guy to quote if you want to prove a point.
Still let's have a closer look at quote 54. The events mentioned take place within the territory of what would later become Eastern-Orthodoxy. The word Catholicism is used, but in this timeperiod that covers all of Christianity.
Quote 20, once again the word Catholicism means all (orthodox) Christianity here.
In fact the emperor Justinian(us) whose name shows up a lot in your quotes is an emperor of the Byzantine (eastern Roman) Empire. The Byzantine Empire is the empire associated with Greek Orthodoxy not Roman Catholicism.
By the time the Western half of the Church is once again somewhat independant from any worldly ruler (mostly by being rulers themselves), the Eastern half of the church is completely on the leash of the Byzantine emperor, to the point that Eastern Christians of all stripes (both Godfearing &. Heretical) consider the emperor's arbitration binding in serious theological disputes.

"I wonder, are there any historians you could quote, that support your view. Seeing that you have a doctorate in church history?"
''
I hope not, considering that I don't seriously hold to the view that the Mother of Harlots is the Greek Orthodox Church.
I only pointed out that your 'evidence' points towards Greek Orthodoxy more than towards Roman Catholicism.

 

Here are some more people that disagree with you mioque.

From the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was energised and guided by the prophetic Word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the papal apostasy till he recognised the pope as antichrist. It was then he burned the papal Bull. Knox's first sermon, the sermon which launched him on his mission as a Reformer, was on the prophecies concerning the Papacy. The Reformers embodied their interpretation of prophecy in their confessions of faith, and Calvin in his "Institutes". All the Reformers were unanimous in the matter . . . And their interpretation of these prophecies determined their reforming action . . . It nerved them to resist the claims of that apostate church to the uttermost. It made them martyrs, it sustained them at the stake. And the views of the Reformers were shared by thousands, by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by princes and peoples... —H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation (Toronto: S. R. Briggs, [n.d.]), pp.250-260.


Martin Luther
We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Briefwechsel (Weimar, 1930-1948), Vol.2, p.167, cited in What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M. Plass, Vol.1, p.34.

You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to consume with the spirit of His mouth and will very soon destroy and slay with the brightness of His coming, for which we are waiting. — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883-), Vol. 8, p.554., cited in Plass, op. cit, Vol.1, pp.36, 37.

(In response to a papal bull [official decree]): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." --D'Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.


John Calvin
Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. The head of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western church, we affirm to be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish the name of Christ or the Church. Hence it appears, that we by no means deny that church may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and pernicious doctrines; like poisonous potions, in such churches, Christ lies half buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the worship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such a state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather than of the holy city of God. — John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,1960), Bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 12.


"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."
Taken from Institutes by John Calvin.

I deny him to be the vicar of Christ. . . . He is antichrist—I deny him to be head of the church. (John Calvin Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 219, 220)


Heinrich Bullinger
By the little horn many understand the kingdom of Mohammed, of the Saracens and of the Turks . . . But when the apostolic prophecy in Second Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it seems that this prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong more rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen from small beginnings and has increased to an immense size. —Trans. from Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta (Daniel the Most Wise Prophet of God), chap. 7, fol. 78v.


Nicholas Ridley
The head, under Satan, of all mischief is Antichrist and his brood; and the same is he which is the Babylonical beast. The beast is he whereupon the whore sitteth. The whore is that city, saith John in plain words, which hath empire over the kings of the earth. This whore hath a golden cup of abominations in her hand, whereof she maketh to drink the kings of the earth, and of the wine of this harlot all nations hath drunk; yea, and kings of the earth have lain by this whore; and merchants of the earth, by virtue of her pleasant merchandise, have been made rich.

Now what city is there in the whole world, that when John wrote, ruled over the kings of the earth; or what city can be read of in any time, that of the city itself challenged the empire over the kings of the earth, but only the city of Rome, and that since the usurpation of that See hath grown to her full strength? — Nicholas Ridley, A Piteous Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England, in the Time of the Late Revolt from the Gospel, in Works, p.53.


Philip Melanchthon
18. Since it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist.

19. Likewise in 2 Thess. II, Paul clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church exalting himself above the worship of God, etc.

20. But it is certain that the popes do rule in the church, and under the title of the church in defending idols.

21. Wherefore I affirm that no heresy hath arisen, nor indeed shall be, with which these descriptions of Paul can more truly and certainly accord and agree than with this pontifical kingdom . . .

25. The prophet Daniel also attributes these two things to Antichrist; namely, that he shall place an idol in the temple, and worship [it] with gold and silver; and that he shall not honor women.

26. That both of them belong to the Roman Pontiff, who does not clearly see? The idols are clearly the impious masses, the worship of saints, and the statues which are exhibited in gold and silver that they may be worshiped. —Trans. from Philip Melanchthon, "De Matrimonio," Disputationes, No.56, in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), Vol.12, cols. 535, 536.


John Hooper
Because God hath given this light unto my countrymen, which be all persuaded, (or else God send them to be persuaded!) that the bishop of Rome nor none other is Christ's vicar upon the earth; it is no need to use any long or copious oration: it is so plain that it needeth no probation; the very properties of antichrist, I mean of Christ's great and principal enemy, is so openly known to all men, that are not blinded with the smoke of Rome, that they know him to be the beast that John describeth in the Apocalypse. — John Hooper, Declaration of Christ and His Office, chap. 3, in Works, Vol. 1, pp.22, 23 (early writings).


Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them."
Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.


John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks."
Taken from The Zurich Letters, pg. 199 by John Knox.


Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.)
Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.


John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone."
Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110.


Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)."
Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.


The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)


Irish Articles of Faith (adopted in 1615): "The Bishop of Rome...be that man of sin', foretold in the holy Scriptures."

Westminster Confession of Faith: "The Pope of Rome...is that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ."

Savoy Declaration: "The Pope of Rome...is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition."

Baptist Confession 1688: "The Pope of Rome...is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition."


For eleven hundred years, Christians have identified the Church of Rome as being the Whore of Revelation 17.

By 900 AD, "Tergandus, Bishop of Treves, called the Pope antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, Babylon" (Martyrs Mirror, 5th English edition, p. 240).

In the tenth century, Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, called the Pope Antichrist, in a full council at Rheims (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, 1821, p. 229).

The Waldensian treatise titled the Noble Lesson, dated 1100 A.D., stated: "Antichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city." In 1120 or 1160 A.D., A Treatise Concerning Antichrist identified the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. George Faber identifies this as a production of Peter the Valdo (Faber, pp. 379-384).

In 1206, the Albigenses made the following confession: "That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ, but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. That the polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by Jesus Christ" (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821 edition, first published in 1692, p. 178).

Throughout the Reformation era, Rome was considered the Mother of Harlots. On September 9, 1560, Pastor Jean Louis Paschale of Calabria, just before he was burned alive in the presence of Pope Pius IV in Rome, turned to the Pope and "arraigned him as the enemy of Christ, the persecutor of his people, and the Anti-Christ of Scripture, and concluded by summoning him and all his cardinals to answer for their cruelties and murders before the throne of the Lamb" (J.A. Wylie, History of the Waldenses, c1860, p. 120).

William Tyndale identified the Pope as Antichrist in his treatise "The Practice of Prelates" and in his Preface to the 1534 edition of the New Testament. Many of the early Protestant Bibles contained artwork that portrays the Scarlet Woman of Revelation 17, and identifies the Roman Catholic Church as this apostate religion. In his 1893 work titled Union with Rome, Bishop Christopher Wordsworth of the Church of England stated the view which prevailed among Protestants at that time: "... we tremble at the sight, while we read the inscription, emblazoned in large letters, `Mystery, Babylon the Great,' written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church of Rome."

John Wesley's Notes; But he that had the mark, namely, the name of the first beast, or the number of his name - The name of the beast is that which he bears through his whole duration; namely, that of Papa or Pope: the number of his name is the whole time during which he bears this name. Whosoever, therefore, receives the mark of the beast does as much as if he said expressly, "I acknowledge the present Papacy, as proceeding from God;" or, "I acknowledge that what St. Gregory VII. has done, according to his legend, (authorized by Benedict XIII.,) and what has been maintained in virtue thereof, by his successors to this day, is from God." By the former, a man hath the name of the beast as a mark; by the latter, the number of his name. In a word, to have the name of the beast is, to acknowledge His papal Holiness; to have the number of his name is, to acknowledge the papal succession. The second beast will enforce the receiving this mark under the severest penalties. (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, Revelation 13:17)


I am sorry mioque, but the overwhelming wieght of historical testimony, is to the effect that the Church of Rome, not the Greek Orthodox Church, is the MOH, the beast, Babylon, and the seat of Anti-Christ. Those who gave this testimony were not ignorant, and uneducated men, as you suggest. If you wish to change my mind about this one, you will have to do more than just tell me that you have a doctorate in church-history.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

I don't know if it is any "smack down" against the Catholics or Mormons, than it is for all other churches that seem to think they are the "correct" church. Does the Baptist, Pentecostal, or Born Again think that what church or faith they profess doesn't matter, and yet they have chosen one. Why choose any, if it doesn't matter? Why not just choose a mountain top like Amy Grant sings about?

The fact is, it DOES matter, and that is why each of us has made some kind of choice, even if the choice is to NOT attend any one denomination or church. There are many denominations because there are many ideas of what we should be doing, on how we want to worship.

I say let us worship how we want, and there are many denominations because we WANT there to be many denominations. Else we would all choose one.

They can't all be right. There are differences. Some say it doesn't matter as long as we believe in Christ. I say, if it doesn't matter, then why the discussion? Obviously it does.