An Amillennial understanding of the Kingdom of God

[Robert R. Higby]

The Catholic (East-West) church although agreeing to the divinity of Jesus Christ as a tenet of their faith, totally rejected the finished work (Gospel) of Jesus Christ and substituted a works oriented Judeo/Pagan mystical hybrid religion

In this rejection of the gospel they stood firmly in the tradition of that great deceiver Tertullian, whose ONLY point of New Testament orthodoxy was confessing the divinity of Jesus Christ. On everything else, the anti-gospel soteriology of the apostasy was manifested in its final maturity in his teachings. Yet Protestantism lauds him as one of the great orthodox 'defenders of the faith'.

[Robert R. Higby]

The gospel must interpret what constitutes scripture and likewise scripture must witness to the Gospel. Both are integral and inseparable. Truth, doctrine, and love are inseparable. They coexist together. Truth and doctrine without love profits nothing for it will lack the source which is love. And a professed love that dismisses truth and doctrine is a false love.

Amen! I would add that such professed love (that dismisses truth) always manifests itself in HATE TOWARD GOSPEL BELIEVERS when it is confronted with the broad implications of revealed gospel truth. This is what John is referring to in his first epistle.

[Saint Nicholas]

1054 AD (East-West Schism) was another pinnacle period of history. The tension that was brewing for centuries prior between the East (Greek/Byzantine ) and West (Latin/Rome) factions of the beastly religion came to a boiling point. As briefly mentioned earlier, these tensions were based along political, theological, and ecclesiastical issues.

For a better understanding please read from the below links. These are just a few.

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Schism

From a scriptural perspective we have already discussed some false premises the beastly religion was founded upon.

It is wrong from an ecclesiastical premise.
It is wrong from a soteriological premise.
It is wrong from a political premise.

Due to this incorrectness there would be more blood-shedding, hate and intolerance. The lust for world supremacy (power and control over souls) would continue. From Constantine to this period in discussion, we get a pretty good glimpse at the realities of “recontructionism” in it's actual historical application. It did not work in the past and postmillennial reconstructionism will not work presently or in the future.

The West ( Latin Catholicism) would at this time prove to be the more formidable foe between the two. Why? The West duped (through religious sorcery and false claims) more political Kings and Princes to fight for her than her counterpart. This period also demonstrates more fully the intrinsic evil of the Papal despotic system. The Crusades and the Inquisition were motivated by both Satanic political and theological aspirations. Lofty goals to achieve world supremacy attempting to subjugate all peoples to the Vicar of Christ.

Here is a brief example of the arrogant claims made by the Papacy that the Byzantines would not and could not accept. And neither would I.
crusader01.gif

Pope Gregory VII (originally named Hildebrand) (1020-1085) Dictatus papae

1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4. That, in a council, his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5. That the pope may depose the absent.
6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That this is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

The above 27 satanic falsehoods set the world on a new course. “Let there be more blood” Totalitarian, egotistic, insane, criminal psychopathic despotism cloaked under the guise of the Christian faith. There is only one reason why an individual would still maintain that the Papacy, her ecumenical friends, and daughters (protestants) are to be considered part of the Body of Christ. That reason is due to blindness. Only one who has been regenerated by God's (Holy Spirit) grace possesses the ability to discriminate between that which belongs to the Kingdom of Light and that which belongs to the kingdom of darkness.

Although I am just as much opposed to the Orthodox wing of the religious beast, below are a few sites from an Orthodox perspective to achieve a better understanding of the conflict.

In one of the articles you will find this statement.

“Our (Orthodox-added) involvement in various religious topics which relate completely to Orthodoxy, should at no time be seen as intolerance or as some sort of hostile activity.”

History tells us a different story. Although Orthodoxy/Byzantium was weaker than the Papal states, they have a fair share of intolerance and blood on their hands also.

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/37E540D9.en.aspx
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/papism.en.aspx

Do we recall when God divided mankind? Nimrod proposed both a religious and political unity based on rebellion against God. This enduring spiritual principal of rebellion is applicable to ALL of unregenerate and reprobate mankind. Even to the establishment of the pseudo Christian enterprise. Additional comments in blue.

Ge. 10:8 “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty onein the earth.”
The great apostasy produced the clergy, false gospel, and a Judaized form of Christian religion. They became mighty on the earth.

v10 “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.....”
The beginning of their kingdom was the lamb-like beast. Her spiritual “DNA” like Islam was rooted in apostate national Israel.

Ge.11:4 “4 And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
The lamb-like beast said let us build the “City of God ala Augustine” by the good works of our own hands. So we can merit justification before God and reach up to heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves with all applicable clergy titles, ecclesiastical structure, and offices so we will not be divided.

5 And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the Lord looked at this abominable institution which the children of men built and said, “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

6 And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do.
They indeed are one people. From the “fathers” to this day their clerical robes are drenched with blood. They all share in the language of heresy.

7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Indeed God did take action. He brought about schism after schism till this monster become shattered into hundreds of sects.

8 So Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off building the city.
Now they build their own denominations and sects and reject the absolute sovereignty of God and the Gospel of Christs' imputed righteousness. They hold to falsehoods of “mans free will and human responsibility”along with the notion God loves everyone.

9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
The Christian religion (not the true faith of Christ) is part of Babel/Babylon. And their heresies and evils are spread throughout the earth. cf. Re. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21.

Nimrod proposed both a religious and political unity based on rebellion against God. So did institutional pseudo-Christianity, Talmudic Judaism, and Islam. These three constitute an unholy trinity.

This schism brought about a wave of madness called the crusades. During the Crusades many Orthodox Churches were ransacked and destroyed, and many relics and ancient items stolen and destroyed (among them the Holy Napkin) by the Latin Catholics, who had pretty much at this time abandoned the Orthodox.

These incidents happened during one of the most brutal times in (christian?) history. One would think that after 1200 years since Christ was on this earth, the true Gospel proclaimed and taught by Paul the Apostle, the spiritual growth of Christianity would have been better than that. However, without the truth of the Gospel, and guidance of the Holy Spirit, what else can be expected. The situations leading up to the sack of 1204 and the sack itself have left deep scars. Pope John Paul II addressed the Archbishop of Athens and Primate of Greece. He said:

"Clearly there is a need for a liberating process of purification of memory. For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him."

"Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians [Roman Catholics] fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the 'mysterium iniquitatis' at work in the human heart? To God alone belongs judgment and, therefore, we entrust the heavy burden of the past to his endless mercy, imploring him to heal the wounds that still cause suffering to the spirit of the Greek people."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...athens_en.html

Just another bit of lip-service from the pontiff. But what happened in 1204? Was the blood spillage due to real truthful scriptural differences? Lets see.

The Crusades began in the 1090’s , which is forty years after the Orthodox desecrated the Latin Eucharist and holy books (because they were in Latin rather than Greek). Now that's a good reason to kill and slaughter one another, right.?????

The Byzantine patriarch attacked the Latin churches in Constantinople itself, which were Latin speaking churches which existed since the time of Constantine; and he declared that their Eucharist was invalid because the Romans used unleavened (rather than leavened) bread. Wow! Another good reason to shed blood.????

The Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire. So, he took armed soldier into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecrated Eucharist in the streets. Sheer insanity!!

For those not familiar with the “tabernacle”, it is a little house, usually on the back altar, where Jesus is stored for a time being until the priest removes Jesus from the house and eats him. How dare they throw Jesus (consecrated hosts) in the street.Utter superstition! Madness!

Horrifying as the sack of 1204 was, it should be noted that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated. A bloodcurdling massacre of thousands [about 2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant], in which the slaughterers (Christians) spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor monk. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother's wombs; bodies of dead Westerners were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. I thought the scriptures taught “vengeance is mine saith the Lord” But not according to false christianity.

Eastern Orthodox scholar, Bishop Ware, also honorably writes about the Orthodox share of the blame in these massacres:

"Each . . . must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace.”Catholic historian Warren Carroll recalls two other lamentable Byzantine incidents:

“In 1171 (only ***33 years**** before), on the orders or at least with the tacit approval of the Byzantine government, thousands of Venetians in the Eastern empire had been killed, mutilated, or arrested and held for years in prison.”“[In 1188] ...(only **16 yrs** before) Frederick Barbarossa . . . requested permission of the Eastern Emperor, Isaac II Angelus, for passage of his army through Byzantine dominions on the way to the Holy Land, and for the right to purchase food for his troops within them. Isaac said he agreed . . . but in fact Isaac was resolved to oppose the passage of the crusaders, and made contact with Saladin [the Muslim commander] to concert plans "to delay and destroy the German army." About this "Byzantine treachery" there is no doubt; even the many modern Western historians sympathetic to Byzantium and hostile to the Crusades have to admit it [e.g., Emperor Isaac, in 1187, had written Saladin to congratulate him for his great achievement of re-taking Jerusalem from the Latin crusaders]” . . .

“[Frederick's envoys, imprisoned for a time] returned to Frederick . . . with infuriating (and accurate) reports of the Byzantine alliance with Saladin, plans to destroy the crusading army as it crossed the Dardanelles, and the violent anti-Western attitude of Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople, who had offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a Westerner. Frederick passed on this information to his son Henry, . . . to ask the Pope's approval for a crusade against the Eastern Empire because of its treachery and dealings with the enemy. No Papal approval was given and Frederick soon thought better of the idea . . . Though a war against Christians was indubitably a perversion of the crusading ideal, Emperor Isaac's acts against the crusaders had clearly been acts of war” . . .

“Everything that the Fourth Crusade later did to Christendom's discredit, Frederick Barbarossa refused to do .... The extent of Byzantine provocation of the Third Crusade is obvious from the sequence of events. It would be a long time before anyone in the West would trust them again.”

Latin Catholic bishop Bruno [1048-1123] made these statements assessing his own church. “justice had perished” “churchman in high places were constantly unmindful of justice” Although he was made a “saint” by Roman Catholic church, canonized by Pope Lucius III in 1183, it shows that even some unregenerate men can still produce an honest statement once in a while.

The administration of justice was based on pure superstition during many centuries of the Middle Ages, and known as ordeals or 'judgments of God'. These alleged judgments of God' gave rise to new superstitions. Whether guilty or not, persons subjected to the trials would often put more confidence in charms, magic formulas, and ointments than in the Providence of God. As late as 1538 the legal lore had hitherto been presented in a very barbarous form. As for widows and orphans, one of the proudest brags of the insane clerics, the “Church” by sword and rack and stake, has made an infinity more of widows and orphans that she ever meagerly cared for in her monkish lazzarettos.

The “christian” motto of the Vendic crusade in 1147: "He who will not be baptised, shall die".

There were Crusades against the Moslems and Jews.
There were the Northern Crusades: against the non-Christians of Eastern Europe.
There were Crusades against the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There were Crusades against Orthodox Russia:
There were Crusades against alleged christian heretics: the Albigenses, Cathar and Waldensians
There even was a Children's Crusade.

The bloody history and pattern of violence is so overwhelming that only a reprobate would try to defend the Christian religion. The Christian religion is evil. As evil as Talmudic Zionism, and Islam. Only through divine causality regeneration and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, is one able to “come out from among her” and partake of the true faith, to eat and drink in His kingdom via the Holy Spirit.

”Wherever there have been fought wars, where pillaging, burning and bloodshed have taken place, the holy church has participated.” A. Overland

“Damned be he who protect his sword from blood”. Pope Gregory VII

“When the key of St. Peter don’t suffice, let his sword help me!” Pope Julian II

“Through Gods wonderful and just judgement the crusaders waded in blood to their knees, - yes, even up to their horses saddles” Raimond of Agiles

The crusades were in reality nothing other than pure Roman Catholic wars organized by the Popes. However, crusades are not something enjoyed by papists within medieval times only. They are something we also can find in modern times. The Vietnam War was declared as a crusade by the American Catholic bishops. Those same bishops also declared, in the second Vaticanum, that one should use the atomic bomb against Vietnam to defend Catholicism there.

The beast does not change. How can a reprobate system ever change?

Next Aquinas....to be cont.

[Robert R. Higby]

The bloody history and pattern of violence is so overwhelming that only a reprobate would try to defend the Christian religion. The Christian religion is evil. As evil as Talmudic Zionism, and Islam. Only through divine causality regeneration and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, is one able to “come out from among her” and partake of the true faith, to eat and drink in His kingdom via the Holy Spirit.

Amen Nicholas! The perverts of today equate 'religion' with 'faith', i.e., a 'religion' equals a 'faith'. May God damn Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformed ecclesiology equally since they are one and the same doctrine! And let the Protestant churches suffer the strong delusion that God has sent them because they hate the truth--admitting Roman Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists to communion who profess to be 'members of an evangelical church' while excluding gospel believers standing for the truth of Jesus Christ who won't accept non-profit corporation 'membership' in their apostate 'churches'.

[Saint Nicholas]

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Philosopher, Theologian, Doctor of the Latin Papal Church


220px-Thomas_Aquinas_in_Stained_Glass_crop.jpg


Thomas is attributed with honorary titles such as Doctor Angelicus, Doctor Communis, or Doctor Universalis by the Roman Catholic church, along with being adored and confirmed by Rome's papal vassal sympathizers the “fifth column”apostate protestant theologians.

Thomas in my view was an eclectic writer. He is Aristotelian, Platonic, and Socratic at his core and his clever powers of synthesizing scripture with philosophy were extraordinary.

Thomas continued to refine and more adequately present the already existing philosophical/theological heresies promulgated by his earlier Latin/West predecessors, Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, also drawing upon men of the East, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen.

The writings that exercised the greatest influence on his mind were the writings of the philosophers, especially of Aristotle, Plato, and Boethius, the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, the works of the Fathers both Greek and Latin, Augustine, the decrees of the councils and of the popes, the Scriptures.

In the "Summa" alone he quotes from the writings of forty six philosophers and poets, his favorite authors being Aristotle, Plato, and, among pseudo - christian writers, Boethius. From Boethius he learned that Aristotle's works could be used without detriment to Papal Christianity. In general Aristotle was his master, but the maturing of Thomas' ideas speak strongly of the Plato also.

The importance of this brief examination into Thomas cannot be understated. The evils of “Thomism”and or a postmillennial “Thomist societal worldview” are currently working again to reinstate the Medieval Papal pseudo christian religion (united with her ecumenical whore protestant daughters) to a status far beyond their twin evil brothers Talmudic Jew Zionism and Islam. The goal of course, as always with Papal despotism is to achieve and maintain chief evil status and supremacy in the world of religion and politics amongst her evil religious brothers. These three false monotheistic religious systems continually war amongst one another, currently as in the past.

We will only focus on two subjects pertaining to Thomas. One, his heretical ecclesiastical intolerance, and two, his heretical soteriology on Justification.

I whole-heartily recommend that all of you read Thomas' works for the benefit of not being misguided by those who claim to be reformed but are none other than philosophical Thomists, and Papal sympathizers. There are many of these “Judases” in reformed and non-catholic circles. Just to name a few notables: Timothy M. Renick, David C. Steinmetz, John L. Farthing, John H. Gerstner, R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, J.I.Packer, N.T. Wright. Charles Colson in his book “How Now Shall We Live” extols and praises the virtues of a Thomist society. These men for decades have been resurrecting Aquinas (Thomism) and Augustine giving them the status of proto-protestants. Nothing can be further from the truth and is the biggest lie perpetuated from the depths of hell and taught from the mouths and writings of the above named corrupt theologians and writers.

Thomas was a very organized and clever writer. In the sections (Summa Theologica) he opens with an “entire question” then breaks the question down into different categories. Within the different categories he proposes objections. Some straw-men in my view, some from other religious and philosophical writers, then proceeds to answer the objections with his own personal views as developed from Augustine, Jerome, the fathers among others. All quotes will be taken from Thomas' own writings, “Summa Theologica”.

Now please bear in mind, the “objections” are what Thomas writes against.
My critiques in “blue”.

Heretical Ecclesiastical Intolerance.

Whether it is suitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol? IIa IIae q. 1 a. 9

Objection 1. It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Dt. 4:2): “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it.” therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.

The essence of the proposed objection seeks to undermine the Papal claim that tradition, living magisterium, and the collective witness of the “church” codified in dogma and doctrine are of equal authority as to the scriptures thus binding on the conscience. So even before the official start of the “reformation” some few hundred years later, there were those who were starting to dissent.

Thomas:“On the contrary, the universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples ( Jn. 16:13):“When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.”

Thomas: Reply to Objection 1. “The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression,and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. this indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.”

Now there are some truths and errors mingled in his reply. But the end result is disastrous. In his general opening argument he proposes the faulty premise that the Church cannot error therefore it's teachings contain nothing defective.

It is quite true that “truth” is contained in the Holy Writ. It is also quite true that for one to gather more truth it requires long study and practice. But it is wrong for an individual to allow clerics decide for them what should be believed (or not) as truth. A proposed belief for all to blindly submit too. You see, because Thomas considers the laity to be burdened by the affairs of this world, we should let the clergy decide for us what is truth, then blindly follow that alleged truth.

This essential “Thomist” principle way of thinking is not only confined to the papal religious realm but it has reached outward to political thought also. Most citizens do not question the motives and actions of their respective governments. They have been misguided into thinking that their government (through blind loyalty wrongly equated as patriotism) would never act to lie, harm or injure them. Most protestants think the same way. Many Americans think the same way also.

From this point I'll mainly quote Thomas' replies. If you want to see all the objections a link will be supplied. You can read for yourself.

http://www.op.org/summa/

IIa IIae q. 1 a. 10 (bold and underlined added)

“On the contrary, the symbol was drawn us by a general council. Now such a council cannot be convoked otherwise than by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as stated in the Decretals. therefore it belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol.”

Falsehood, not scriptural at all.

“I answer that, As stated above (obj. 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred,” as stated in the Decretals. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Lk. 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” the reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1Cor. 1:10: “that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision.Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

a-POPE-386x217.jpg

More lies and falsehoods.

“Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.”

Although Athanasius may have had some truth per Thomas, this truth must be affirmed by the Imperial Potentate himself to be considered a rule of faith.

IIa IIae q. 5 a. 3

“Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”

Allow me to break this down a bit.

One: If one believes the Papal church to be infallible then naturally they must believe ALL teachings to be absolute truth.

Two: If one dissents by rejecting some teachings of the Papal church, in that rejection he denies the infallibility of the church thus rejecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit and acquiescing to his own will.

“On the contrary, the universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost”

Three: A heretic is defined as one who “obstinately”disbelieves “one” article of the Papal faith.
The one who is not “obstinate” yet disagrees is only considered to be in error. However in both cases Thomas sees these individuals as guided by their own will and not of the Holy Spirit.

“The various conclusions of a science have their respective means of demonstration, one of which may be known without another, so that we may know some conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.”

According to Thomas, true faith adheres to all articles of the Papal faith by reason of “ONE MEAN”, that is the scriptures as solely interpreted and understood by the Papist clergy period!

Whoever abandons the dogmas and teachings of the Papacy have abandoned the “MEAN” thus totally lacks faith.

Whether unbelief is a sin? IIa IIae q. 10 a. 1

“Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that “presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory.”....

We have already shown in Thomas that the “rules of faith” strictly belong and are the prerogatives of the Papal church alone. Any dissension against the Papal church is considered the sin of unbelief.

Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith? IIa IIae q. 10 a. 8

Objection 1. “It would seem that unbelievers ought by no means to be compelled to the faith. For it is written (Mat.13:28) that the servants of the householder, in whose field cockle had been sown, asked him: “Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?” and that he answered: “No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it”: on which passage Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Matth.): “Our Lord says this so as to forbid the slaying of men. For it is not right to slay heretics, because if you do you will necessarily slay many innocent persons.” therefore it seems that for the same reason unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith”.

Thomas “On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 14:23): “Go out into the highways and hedges; and compel them to come in.” Now men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy (Roman) Church, by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the faith”

Thomas from this point will start to define what “compel” means.

“I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ’s faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.”

Here, Thomas is quite clever in his wording. He does not deny “compelling” but legitimizes the act of compelling based on the correct motive. In other words if the motive is correct, it is OK to compel through acts of war and bloodshed.

He correctly admits that belief is dependent on the will and no amount of coercion can change that will, none the less waging war (a preemptive holy jihad) with unbelievers is thoroughly just according to Thomas on the grounds of preventing them from hindering the spread of Papal Catholicism. And this psychopath has the audacity to say these are the actions of Christ's faithful.

“On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.”

Bodily compulsion? He means threat of imprisonment, torture, and duress.

“Some have understood the authority quoted to forbid, not the excommunication but the slaying of heretics, as appears from the words of Chrysostom. Augustine too, says (Ep. ad Vincent. xciii) of himself: “It was once my opinion that none should be compelled to union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone, not by words of contradiction, but by convincing examples. Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say: Thanks be to the Lord Who has broken our chains asunder.” Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord’s words, “Suffer both to grow until the harvest,” must be gathered from those which precede, “lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it.” For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) “these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man’s crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders,or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken.”

Thomas now has to deal with Chrysostom, Augustine, and the words of Christ Himself forbidding the slaying of heretics. Not excommunication. Thomas concludes it is perfectly just to slay heretics. And we already know what he means by heretics. Those opposed to the Papacy.

Rome always rules it subjects (political/religious) through the use of fear, intimidation, and tyranny. As Christ guides His flock with love, truth and compassion, Rome and her allies guide with hate, lies, and death.

Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers? IIa IIae q. 10 a. 9

“The Church does not exercise judgment against unbelievers in the point of inflicting spiritual punishment on them: but she does exercise judgment over some of them in the matter of temporal punishment. It is under this head that sometimes the Church, for certain special sins, withdraws the faithful from communication with certain unbelievers.”

In other words, if you live in a Papal controlled country/state the church decides who you can communicate with.

Whether unbelievers may have authority or dominion over the faithful? IIa IIae q. 10 a. 10

“Those who are in authority can pronounce judgment on those over whom they are placed. But
unbelievers cannot pronounce judgment on the faithful, for the Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:1): “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust,” i.e. unbelievers, “and not before the saints?” Therefore it seems that unbelievers (non Catholics) cannot have authority over the faithful.”

How is this any different than the Talmud and Qur’an? It's not. Papist have always attempted to subvert non Catholic countries and install Papal dictators and or sympathizers. Just look at South America, and the Philippines just to name a few.

“I answer that, that this question may be considered in two ways. First, we may speak of dominion or authority of unbelievers over the faithful as of a thing to be established for the first time. this ought by no means to be allowed, since it would provoke scandal and endanger the faith, for subjects are easily influenced by their superiors to comply with their commands, unless the subjects are of great virtue: moreover unbelievers (non -Papists) hold the (Roman) faith in contempt, if they see the faithful fall away. Hence the Apostle forbade the faithful to go to law before an unbelieving judge. And so the Church altogether forbids unbelievers to acquire dominion over believers, or to have authority over them in any capacity whatever.”

“Nevertheless this right of dominion or authority can be justly done away with by the sentence or ordination of the (Papal) Church who has the authority of God: since unbelievers in virtue of their unbelief deserve to forfeit their power over the faithful who are converted into children of God.”

OK. Thomas and the Popes have spoken. Forfeit your authority and government. Give your people and country over to the rule of the Pontiff.

“This the Church does sometimes, and sometimes not. For among those unbelievers who are subject, even in temporal matters, to the Church and her members, the Church made the law that if the slave of a Jew became a Christian, he should forthwith receive his freedom, without paying any price, if he should be a “vernaculus,” i.e. born in slavery; and likewise if, when yet an unbeliever, he had been bought for his service: if, however, he had been bought for sale, then he should be offered for sale within three months. Nor does the Church harm them in this, because since those Jews themselves are subject to the Church, she can dispose of their possessions, even as secular princes have enacted many laws to be observed by their subjects, in favor of liberty. On the other hand, the Church has not applied the above law to those unbelievers who are not subject to her or her members, in temporal matters, although she has the right to do so: and this, in order to avoid scandal, for as Our Lord showed (Mat. 17:25,26) that He could be excused from paying the tribute, because “the children are free,” yet He ordered the tribute to be paid in order to avoid giving scandal. thus Paul too, after saying that servants should honor their masters, adds, “lest the name of the Lord and His doctrine be blasphemed.”

“Slaves are subject to their masters for their whole lifetime, and are subject to their overseers in
everything:”

The Jews and Portuguese Catholics were the biggest slave traders in the entire world. And this is some twelve centuries after Jesus was on this earth.

Whether the rites of unbelievers ought to be tolerated? IIa IIae q. 10 a. 11

“On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.”

This statement is the heart of the Papacy. Individual rites of non-Catholics are not true. In other words do not exist, nor are profitable to the goals and aims of the Papacy, hence should not be tolerated. The only exception to that rule is “at certain times” toleration must exist only when Roman Catholics are in the minority. History shows us that when the Papacy controls a country and is in the majority, the beast is cruel, unloving, hateful, bigoted, and bloodthirsty.

Whether heresy is a species of unbelief ? IIa IIae q. 11 a. 1

“Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.”

We have already shown that according to Thomas, truth can only be seen through the lens/eyes of the Pontifical Roman Catholic Church alone. Any form of dissent from Rome is considered an act contrary to truth. These individuals are viewed as heretics and oppose the truth. Thus they are unbelievers.

“Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.”

Thomas also includes individuals who profess to be of the Christian faith but corrupt it's dogmas.
Dogmas of course as defined and taught solely through Papal Rome.

“Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is adherence to one’s own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness.”

Thomas in vain labors to find the root cause of heresy. But as long as he wears the lens of Rome, he cannot see himself the rank heretic that he is.

Whether heresy is properly about matters of faith? IIa IIae q. 11 a. 2

“As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus):“By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth,” because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic.This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff. For we read‡: “Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion.” Hence Jerome says (Exposit.Symbol§): “This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If however this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic.”

To summarize, heresy is thus the obstinate denial of the definitive teachings of the Pontifical church. However many a person was murdered and tortured for crimes against the Papal Church that were not yet defined by the Sovereign. Similar to the provisions in the US Patriot Act, whereas US citizens can be detained, arrested, and thrown into prison on mere suspicion without due process of law. Same evil mentality with same results. If one dissents or disagrees with the US Federal Government's teachings/policies, this citizen is considered a heretic/treasonist and worthy to be imprisoned. No difference in essence. The provisions of the “Patriot Act” (drop the phony name) can easily be adopted in Talmudic Zionist and Islamic controlled countries. The essential deprivation of human rites are always the goal of evil religionists and despotic governments.

Whether heretics ought to be tolerated? IIa IIae q. 11 a. 3

“With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.”

“On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,”as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.”

Like the wicked Pharisees and Jewish leaders in Christ's day, the Papists want to deliver dissenters to the secular tribunals (Pilate) for extermination. Stalin learned this tactic from the Zionist Jews in Russia. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini among others, learned from the Pope. Thomas Aquinas is evil to the core. No wonder the Catholic church canonized him as a saint. Evil begets evil.

“According to Decret. (xxiv, qu.iii, can. Notandum), “to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.”A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor.5:5) that his “spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.” Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (q. 10, a. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.”

Bull S_ _t !

Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy? IIa IIae q. 11 a. 4

“The Decretal Ad abolendam (DeHaereticis, cap. ix) says that “those who are found to have relapsed into the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the secular tribunal.” therefore they should not be received by the Church.

“...heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.”

If a heretic has not been put to death by the secular tribunal, but only tortured to secure a recantation, this heretic then can be re-admitted into the Papal church to perform works of penance to save his own soul.

“But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.”

“In God’s tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death.”

Oh how merciful the devil can be.

Below is a link to an article written by John Robbins. The article examines the evil grip religion has on our USA.

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2010...o-quick-quote/

In our next segment, we will discuss Aquinas on Justification.

To be cont.

[Saint Nicholas]

Aquinas Against Paul the Apostle On Justification.

Justification by Christ's imputed righteousness alone, along with and equally important the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, are the citadel of the Christian faith. They are the very foundation and essence of all that the Holy scriptures reveal from start to finish. Any minor deviation or abandoning of one or both of these foundational and paramount doctrines are grounds to disqualify anyone or any group from claiming themselves as part of the body of Christ.

The attack on the Pauline doctrine of Justification through faith alone in Christ's imputed righteousness alone has been basically twofold and started during the ministry of Paul the Apostle. On the one hand, it is contended that justification is not central to the Christian faith; on the other hand, the juridical nature of justification is called into question and thus repudiated. To the former, existential philosophy/theology are the center of focus. The role and mission of the so-called “church” in the world to effect social justice, politics, and morals have become the central concerns. To the latter, the inner renewal and moral rehabilitation/transformation of man are now considered the real basis and grounds of justification hence a complete man-centered gospel which reduces justification to the quality, growth, and maturity of one's inward spiritual experience/faith. This subjectivism is the heart of Augustine. It is also the heart of Aquinas and thus the heart of The Council of Trent and the beastly religion.

This is one of those “line in the sand issues”. Either one is Justified [declared righteous] by Christ's imputed righteousness alone, or one is Justified [declared righteous] on the basis of an infused righteousness that makes him, or is in the process of making him inherently righteous. The devil (Rome and her ecumenical sympathetic allies) can be content with all forms and nuances of the latter, as long as no one dares to believe the former. Conversely the true regenerate elect child of God can NEVER, I mean NEVER accept the latter. The acceptance of the latter is a manifest denial of the Gospel.

Since I am neither Roman Catholic or Protestant religiously speaking, (although I do love to protest in the real sense of the word), I do not try to protect one side or the other. In fact most protestants prior, and more so after Vatican II have been taught and believe subtle nuances of evangelical Roman Catholic soteriology in their seminaries and churches concerning Justification. I'll just mention one man for now who is a patent liar and deceiver, the late John H. Gerstner.

Gerstner was bold enough to state that Thomas Aquinas was a proto- Protestant. That can be a true statement if Protestants originally taught Papist soteriology. However, what Gerstner is really driving at is that Aquinas like Augustine taught imputation or at least inferred imputation in their theological writings. This is where Gerstner has to eat his own words. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The reason an ignorant man like Gerstner can get away with such a foolish statement is because pew warmers (laity) and his clergy colleagues look at his alphabet soup and never dare question him. Accepting the alleged faulty premise that a man of his prestige, education, and credentials would not state something so profound unless it be true. Well I must tell these blind souls Gerstner was a patent liar and a fool.

I will only summarize the basic tenets of Aquinas' view of Justification taken from “Summa Theologica” and “Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 28”

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm


Whether the remission of sins ought to be reckoned amongst the things required for justification? Summa Ia IIae q. 113 a. 6


According to Thomas, there are four things necessary for Justification. This is the “order of Justification” in Thomas.


1 Infusion of grace
2. Movement of free-will toward God.
3. Movement of free-will from sin.
4. Remission of sins.

To point number one, you will immediately notice that according to Aquinas, Justification becomes a process that is started by the infusion of grace, Gratia Infusa. So in essence Justification or the process of Justification commences via the sacrament of baptism which is equated with regeneration.

Most protestants error at this starting point also. How so? To the old school protestant mentality Justification was not a process so to speak but rather a legal verdict imputed to an individual only after faith in Christ is demonstrated. Faith of course being a direct result of regeneration (Infusion of Grace via the sacrament). So to conclude, both Roman Catholic and the majority of Protestantism hold the heretical view that Justification (whether process or not = moot point) can only be declared or started post Gratia Infusa. In other words both parties demonstrate that Justification is resultant by an intrinsic quality/virtue in man as opposed to an objective historical legal reality in Christ alone. Heretical protestants will state that before regeneration and faith in Christ occur an elect man is still under the legal wrath of God thus repudiating the extrinsic nature and efficacy of an imputed righteousness. This kind of thinking also denigrates the efficacy of both the eternal decree to Justify and historical cross of Jesus Christ. In other words, the cross of Jesus Christ which emanates from eternal decree is considered legal fiction only and not efficacious in reality. Justification only becomes a legal reality when a sinner is regenerated. This is the error of Augustine, Aquinas and many protestant theologians. Now there are some “reformed” folk out there that will admit that the cross was efficacious and actually accomplished something and not a mere opportunity. But my question to some of these individuals is this: “If the cross as you claim was an effectual transfer of sin to righteousness, how can those elect individuals not yet born, or born yet not regenerated still be under the wrath of God”? Either the cross is our actual historical Justification or it is nothing more than a mere prerequisite to that end. A prerequisite that requires our approval/ascent to make it a reality and binding verdict.

To points two and three we can readily deduce that according to Thomas the regenerated individual does not remain static. But before explaining this more in depth let's address the free-will issue.

Catholic theology admits that prior to regeneration and due to original sin, the will of man is not free at all in any sense and relation to God. It is only after the administering of the sacrament of baptism (regeneration) the will is set totally free. This free-will of man is now able to move toward God and move away from sin. Also this same free-will can move away from God and move toward sin thus falling from Grace (Justification). But never permanent as long as the individual is still alive and able to rush to a priest making a sound confession (Sacrament of Penance).

For Thomas (see: http://www.op.org/summa/summa-I-IIq111.html) justifying grace refers not only to entrance into the family of God via the sacramental drip, but to the infusion of sanctifying grace at baptism and all the subsequent graces that work to transform the individual from the inside out.

Lets read a few portions of Thomas' philosophical arguments pertaining to this transformation taken from Questiones Disputatae de Veritate.

Thomas:“Now justification means a motion to justice, just as whitening means a motion to whiteness, though justification could also signify the formal effect of justice; for justice justifies in the same way as whiteness makes white.”

According to Thomas there is no imputation or reckoning of righteousness at all. Justification is a whitening process for the sin blackened soul with inherent sinless perfection being the goal.

Thomas: “In the justification of sinners man contracts a kind of spiritual marriage with God, as is written in Osee (2: 19): “I will espouse thee to me in justice.” But in carnal marriage mutual consent is required. With all the more reason, then, is this true of the justification of sinners. And so the use of free choice is needed for it.”


“The justification of sinners does not take place without charity, because, as is written in Proverbs (10:12), “charity covereth all sins.” But since charity is a kind of friendship, it demands mutual love. For, as the Philosopher makes clear, friendship involves reciprocated love. But mutual love requires the use of free choice in each of the parties. Consequently there cannot be justification without the use of free choice.”

Thomas elaborates on two heretical concepts. One that Justification is reciprocal, and two justification requires free choice. Whereas the scriptures teach that Justification is purely the monergistic extrinsic work of Christ alone and not dependent on the free choice of man. Free will is a myth.

From Summa-Ia-IIae q.111 we deduce from Aquinas that sanctifying grace is a habitual grace. This habitual grace, as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which emanate from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace. Also because God is the sole mover in the infusion of habitual grace, it is entirely attributable to Him. This is also called operating grace. But if habitual grace is supposed to heal and justify the soul, and the soul has by nature certain powers to think and act, then this healing and justification must manifest itself in the activities of the soul. Consequently, these acts allow us to cooperate with God for our inward transformation. Aquinas calls this cooperating grace, since any meritorious acts performed by a soul infused with habitual grace by God would lack merit without that grace and thus without God’s cooperation.“God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God’s justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace.”

According to Thomas, justification and sanctification are not different actions on the part of God, one extrinsic and the other intrinsic. Rather, “sanctification” is the ongoing intrinsic work of the Holy Spirit in justifying, or making the individual rightly ordered (righteous) by means of God’s grace, the same grace that intrinsically changed the believer at the moment of his initial “justification” (i.e. sacrament of baptism) into an adopted child of God.

As long as an individual remains in sanctifying grace he is being progressively justified. If he sins mortally Justification is interrupted. By means of the sacrament of penance the individual continues on the road to Justification.

To point four, remission of sins, the logical outcome of Thomas' heretical view of Justification naturally leads to a place called Purgatory. Purgatory is the final step in the process of Justification where complete remission of sins occur. Both heretics, Augustine and more so Aquinas fully taught the myth of Purgatory.

Also supplied is a link to another section of “Summa” where Aquinas really displays more of his ignorance and superstitious teachings.

http://www.op.org/summa/summa-supp.html

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/7001.htm


Concluding this portion I must state that John Gerstner and his disciple R.C. Sproul Sr. are religious fools for claiming that Aquinas and Augustine were champions of the Gospel. Thomas was more a proto-Tridentine Catholic than a proto-Protestant. These snake-bit scholars in their blindness find creative ways to make it seem as if this thirteenth-century Dominican Friar was a lonely beacon for the Protestant cause amidst the papist fog. But why? What is their motive for promulgating obvious deception?

Below is a link to an article similar in topic. The writer is to soft of Gerstner in my opinion.

The Trinity Foundation - John H. Gerstner on Thomas Aquinas as a Protestant



To be cont.

[Saint Nicholas]

Inquisition And Blood. The Manifest Heart Of The Beastly False Religion.

inquisition2_JPG.jpg

Is.26:1 “For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain” .

Is.59:3-8 “3For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. 4None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. 5They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. 6Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. 7Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. 8The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.”

Unregenerate and reprobate mankind including most men from all christian religious sects scarcely learn from history past. Most who claim to read the scriptures (especially clergymen) lack the fortitude, will, desire, and guts to apply Isaiah's above words to their present political and religious situation. These men (or woman) who claim to be shepherds and protectors of God's flock hide behind their titles, degrees, accolades, doctorates, and some wear their funny costumes. Some of these blind guides expect to gain the respect and submission of individuals based solely on the faulty premise that a piece of paper states “I'm officially ordained”. If God hath not ordained them by the Holy Spirit of truth, then they are not ordained of God at all. These people and their laity serfs continue too this very day by supporting the repetition of the most cruel and heinous acts of violence against mankind equally as their predecessors committed. They cunningly justify this wickedness under the banner of religion and or patriotism no matter what country they are born unto.

No nation on earth (including the USA) will be exempt from the mighty judgment of God. The Inquisitorial practices of evil whether wrapped in a UN Flag, Zionist flag, Islamic flag, Papal flag, or US flag etc; is still evil in God's sight.

Christ's people are called to be ambassadors for the Kingdom of God. We represent a King and a Kingdom that is infinitely and eternally more worthy of our efforts than any kingdom and nation currently existing upon this temporal earth.

We as soldiers for Christ are firstly to proclaim and defend the Gospel. Secondly, as prophets of God, we are to cry out against wickedness just like Isaiah did amongst his corrupt nation. A wickedness that manifests itself throughout all segments of society both political and religious. This may not be seen as “politically correct” for some, and others may go so far as to consider Christ's mouthpieces as those who practice treasonous hate speech, or somehow un-loving, however “We ought to obey God rather than men”. Ac.5:29

Religious and political entities need to know and hear that there are true voices for Christ in this country and around the world. Men and women of truth must speak for truth and righteousness amidst a corrupt society and or corrupt policies both foreign and domestic. Our uncompromising speech/witness is their judgment. They are to be continuously put on notice and warned. Repent or perish!

In this segment we will discuss the devil's use of the Inquisition to further perpetuate his mendacious efforts to subvert, enslave, and destroy mankind.

As written thus far, the christian religion started by the “fathers” was doomed from the very outset. The evilness and blood-lust manifested was tantamount to all her pagan rivals. The history of the christian religion is a gory horror story.

Understanding the following words through Papal eyes is most critical in helping us discern the nature and cruelty of the Papal Inquisition, ie. Satanic religious despotism.

Anathema, Bigotry, Excommunicated, Extirpate, Heretic, Inquisition, Intolerance, Mass Murder, and Torture. These are the words used to exemplify the devil's church.

The Papal Inquisition is a permanent institution (office) in the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresies as so stated and defined by the Pope and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. All methods employed and by whatever means necessary to quash ecclesiastical and or political dissent from Papal controlled countries are deemed to be holy and just. The goal of course is to subject all nations and peoples of this earth to the Vicar of Christ through the use of her political and religious allies.

The targets of the inquisition are wide, deep, and many but can be summed up by stating all who disagree and or become obstinately hostile and vocal against Rome are classified as enemies of the state. Enemies subject too a legal inquisition.

Before the protest movement came into being, Rome the wicked, independent of the East would now flex her muscles once again. She discarded and made herself enemies with the East as previously discussed. Now was her hour to again wield her impiety, superstition, and ruthlessness upon mankind.

The Crusades were Rome's foreign policies of aggression and expansion. The Inquisition is Rome's domestic policy/tool of control and submission.

Dissenting sects like the Albigenses (Cathari) and Waldenses in the 12th century first led to the ecclesiastical Inquisition. Bishops and clergy were urged to investigate and deal locally with heretics, since they were seen as a threat to both the ecclesiastical and the social order. In other words a threat to totalitarian political and ecclesiastical despotism. Papal documents such as the Second, Third, and Fourth Lateran Councils prescribed imprisonment and confiscation of property as punishment for heresy and threatened to excommunicate princes who failed to punish heretics. The threat of excommunication was a fear tactic used by the clergy. Not only did this verdict mean you were consigned to eternal punishment with no hope of salvation, but also temporal punishment as well.

The legal inquisition was also an extortion racket. After the arrest, the property and personal belongings of the accused was instantly confiscated. Rarely was property returned. The popes publicly praised the rule of confiscation (economic ruin) as a prime weapon against heresy. Defending the “faith” became a lucrative enterprise. Rome made its inquisitors incredibly wealthy in the 14th century. Within two years, the inquisitor of Florence amassed "more than seven thousand flourins, an enormous sum." As the inquisitor Heinrich von Schultheis complacently wrote, "When I have you tortured, and by the severe means afforded by the law I bring you to confession, then I perform a work pleasing in God's sight; and it profiteth me."

Confiscation of one's hard earned property took place before an actual conviction, because it was commonly understood that no one escaped. Officials considered themselves safe in acting upon the presumption of guilt. Sometimes confiscation took place even before a confession is made. This is how the devil's justice is administered in Papal controlled societies past and present.

The Inquisition was formally instituted by Pope Gregory IX in 1231 following a law of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, (Lombardy 1224). Gregory ordered convicted heretics to be seized by the secular authorities and burned. Like Frederick, Gregory also mandated that heretics be sought out and tried before a church (kangaroo) court. For this purpose, he first appointed special inquisitors (for example, Conrad of Marburg in Germany and Robert le Bougre in Burgundy) and later entrusted the task to members of the newly established Dominican and Franciscan Orders of friars/devils.

During the 13th century, the typical procedure but not always followed, began with the arrival of the inquisitors in a specific locality. Two informants whose identity was unknown to the victim were usually sufficient for a charge. Many people were subjected to an inquisition without any real informants at all. The court then summoned the suspect, conducted an interrogation, and tried to obtain the confession that was necessary for conviction. In order to achieve this, assisting secular authorities frequently applied physical torture. The use of such painful procedures as stretching of limbs on the rack, burning with live coals, squeezing of fingers and toes, or the strappado, (a vertical rack) were utilized in the hope of extracting a confession. Papists, Zionists, and sadistic so-called christian men and woman today in America push for the governments use of torture. If a person confessed and was made willing, the judges imposed minor penances like flogging, fasts, prayers, pilgrimages, or fines. In more severe cases the wearing of a yellow "cross of infamy," with its resulting social ostracism, or imprisonment could be imposed. Denial of the charges without counter-proof, obstinate refusal to confess, and persistence in the heresy resulted in the most severe punishments. In this Thomist/Papal society rarely would one dare come forward to defend the accused. That would amount to sure death and or imprisonment. The sentenced heretic was surrendered to the secular authorities for execution, usually by burning at the stake.

Sentences were pronounced through the use of a solemn ceremony, known as the sermo generalis ("general address") or, in Spain, as the auto-da-fe ("act of faith"), attended by local dignitaries, clergy, and townspeople. In these solemn ceremonies penitents abjured their errors and received their penalties; obstinate heretics were solemnly cursed and handed over to be burned immediately in public.

The first inquisitors practiced their evil in central Europe (Germany, northern Italy, eastern France). Later centers of the Inquisition were established in the Mediterranean regions, especially southern France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. The inquisitorial tribunal was used in England to suppress the Lollards (followers of the 14th-century reformer John Wycliffe). Queen Mary I of England (r.1553-58) used the tribunal in her effort to reverse the political effects caused by Protestant Reformation. The Inquisition's centuries of survival and public support can be attributed to the early inclusion of offenses other than heresy: sorcery, witchcraft, alchemy, blasphemy, sexual aberration, and infanticide plus really anything the clergy could think of on a whim were grounds for the inquisitors.

Under Pope Gregory IX's First Inquisition, war was not only declared on heretics but “witches” as well. Undoubtedly the most important document supporting the witch hunts, is the Malleus Maleficarum (Witches' Hammer of 1487) in three volumes, the first of which deals with witchcraft, the second with examples and remedies, the third volume describes the legal prosecution (e.g. who is to be tortured, when, and how).

Inquisition of a Witch.jpeg

Due to the vow of celibacy, monks and priests naturally have to suppress their basic God given biological functions and feelings. This suppression of natural biological functions lead these men into a natural hatred for woman on the grounds that woman are somehow seen as detrimental to their vow of celibacy. What the Papacy defined as witches for the most part were none other than midwives and herbal healers. Remember, in those days there were no pharmacies or hospitals like today. Herbal remedies and midwives were necessary.

If a priest or monk looked upon a woman and some natural attraction, emotion, or even carnal lust started to arise from within himself, the priest or monk can claim the woman bewitched him or cast a spell on him and be tried as a witch. If a devout married Papist woman seen or suspected her husband of looking at another woman with lustful eyes, that wife can be an informant against the other woman and claim the woman bewitched or cast a spell of lust on her husband and therefore can be construed as a witch. If woman had peculiar birth marks, moles, or imperfections on her body, the church upon a full examination of her imperfections can claim those marks are proof she is a witch and of the devil.

In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued the notorious witchcraft bull Summis desiderantes affectibus. The bull appeared as a preface to a book commissioned by the Pope and written by the two Dominican inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer and Jakob Sprenger, entitled the Malleus Maleficarum or Hammer of Witches, as previously mentioned. It became the official handbook of witchcraft trial judges all over Europe.

The medieval satanic minds behind the book, laboring under the ignorance of pagan superstition and fancies, came up with the following:

• Witchcraft, the book claimed, sprang from the "carnal lust" of the witch which was an innate attribute of the female.
• Witches had the power to change themselves into animals, and they could fly.
• They worked in secret and could only be brought to justice by extra-legal methods.
• The book recommended the witch was tortured first into confessing her own guilt and then again to incriminate accomplices.

Witch hunters had to deal not only with the suspected witches themselves, but also their children. If a certain witch would not confess, one had to interrogate the little daughters of the sorceresses and witches; since it was often found that they have been instructed by their mothers.

In a similar way already the Malleus had warned that usually the daughters of witches were to be suspected of imitating the crimes of their mothers. Once convicted, the witch was then handed over to the secular arm to be burned to death, "to the satisfaction of the church and delight of the mob".

The inquisitors, fully gorged with their depraved inhumanity, developed a degree of callousness rarely equaled in the annals of civilization. Many of the inquisitors were sadists. Many were libidinous monsters. Some incarcerated the good looking women/witches as they desired, on trumped-up charges of heresy, and kept them for the rest of their days as their sex mistresses. It was either sex slavery or burn at the stake as a condemned witch. Life for a female in those days was not safe at all.

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the use of torture in the extraction of confessions of heresy during the Inquisition by issuing the bull Ad extirpanda "to be exterminated". This ordered all secular rulers to arrest and execute non- Roman Catholic christians and political dissenters. Thus inquisition chambers were turned into rooms of abject horror.

Most of the torturing was performed by members of the Dominican order, whose monks were called the "black friars". To the Dominicans, the screams of their victims were like music to their ears - as it meant "one soul was drawing closer to God". Many other inquisitors and torturers were monks of the Franciscan order, who, like the Dominican monks, had taken vows of poverty and celibacy. Of course, this did not stop them from steeling much of the property and assets of their victims.

To be continued under this same heading.

[Saint Nicholas]

Torture and cold blooded murder of dissidents, witches, and heretics can not be viewed as isolated or even remote incidents performed by a few fringe groups in Papal countries. Torture, cold blooded murder and extortion was a way of life for almost 700 years. Torture and murder was fully and legally incorporated into the very fabric of “Papal” society. In fact, this practice was perfected into an art form by both the clergy and civil authorities. An industry and craft so to speak. It was also a very lucrative venture for all who participated right down to the vendor in the town square selling his delicious baked goods on a typical “burning” day. Murder and torture became a form of entertainment just like the Gladiatorial contests performed a thousand years prior in pagan Rome. Public display of “torture and murder” also served the Vatican in that it created intense fear in the hearts of the people. This fear was a psychological weapon to maintain Rome's evil grip on the populace.

Let's revisit some of the technological advances created in Papal societies.

1217973.jpg

The Pulley, either Strappado or Squassation.

The victim was stripped naked with his wrists tied securely behind his back. A stout rope was then fastened to his wrists and carried over a pulley fixed to the roof of the torture chamber. The executioners then drew the victim up with this rope until he was suspended about six feet from the floor. In this position, heavy iron weights, usually amounting to about 45 kg (100 lbs), were attached to his feet.

At this juncture the victim was asked once more to reveal the truth. Refusal meant the infliction of a number of stripes with a whip upon his naked back. The questions were repeated.

Failure to confess was the signal for the torture to start in real earnest. The executioners pulled on the rope, raising the victim almost to the ceiling. Suddenly allowing the rope to slack for several feet, they then brought this rapid descent to an abrupt termination before the weights reached the floor. The shock to the body, of this suddenly terminated fall, was sufficient to jar every bone, joint and nerve in the system. In most cases it entailed dislocation. The process was repeated again and again until the culprit confessed or became unconscious.

The Rack and the Ladder

These were other forms of torture designed to prolong the body. The rack, standing about a meter from the floor and consisting of a stout wooden framework, was mandatory in almost any ecclesiastical dungeon. It has been said that a victim could be prolonged by up to 30 centimeters during the question of the third degree.

In the question of the first degree, the victim suffered dislocation of the shoulders as the result of his arms being pulled up behind his back. In the second degree, the victim's knee, hip and elbow joints were forced from their sockets; muscle was ripped from the bone causing severe agony and permanent maiming. In the third degree, joints were separated "very audibly"; the victim was dismembered and paralyzed and, gradually, over hours and days, the life functions ceased one by one.

Legally, torture sessions lasted up to two hours; however, sessions of between three and four hours were not uncommon, as different methods were employed.

Church authorized instruments were often sprinkled with holy water and blessed by the pagan/catholic priest before use.

To muffle screams within the torture chamber, victims had their mouths stuffed with cloth and the walls themselves often were lined with heavy quilts to make the torture chamber as soundproof as possible.

Listed below are other “holy” methods utilized by the “faithful”

In both heresy and witchcraft trials, commonly used tortures included the boot which crushed the foot, ankle and leg bones "until the blood and marrow spouted forth".

• Thumbscrews, toescrews and knee-splitters also were used to crack, pop or break the joints or splinter the bones of a suspect.
• Flesh was ripped, nipped, sliced or pierced with cold or red hot pincers, skewers, knives or hooks.
• Toenails and fingernails were broken and torn out with a turkas or tongs, either red hot or cold.
• Tongues were pierced, cut or rooted out and eyes were extinguished by gouging, plucking, bursting or burning.
• Ears, noses, hands and feet were sawn, cut or hacked off; toes and fingers were amputated sometimes joint by joint over several days.
• Teeth were extracted with pliers or chisels and the raw tooth sockets probed with cold or red hot needles to add to the pain.
• Men had their genitals cut away, crushed or burnt off with balls of flaming brimstone.
• Woman had their nipples torn out with cold or red hot pincers; or their entire breasts sliced off with shears.
• Vaginas and rectums were mutilated with the "pear", a device that, on insertion, was expanded by means of a screw causing the cavity to rip apart, often with fatal results.
• Many women were raped by their “Catholic” captives while men were flogged with chain scourges or flails for the slightest breach of regulations, including speaking or making sounds.
• Leather or corded scourges, called skinning cats, also were used; their thongs often were stiffened by being dipped in melted pitch, which tore away flesh at every stroke until the back became one large ulcer.
• Forced feeding with salted fish (which induced thirst) was another often used form of torture, as was pouring molten lead down the victim's throat.
• Victims also were forced to take either freezing cold or scalding hot baths, the latter laced with lime that seared the flesh. These often were followed by scouring with a device resembling a wire brush.
• Others had their naked bodies raked or shredded to the bone with a device known as the "cat's paw".
• Roasting on a spiked iron chair was a favorite in all Catholic dungeons; so too was scorching the skin of the armpits or groin with burning feathers dipped in sulphur.
  Feet were coated with lard or oil before they were slowly roasted over a fire; the bones cracking and popping as the marrow dripped into the flames.
  If the victim did not confess after this, the hands were the next to go.
• Another frequently applied torture used by both Roman Catholics and Protestants was "thawing", which involved the victim being jerked roughly about by means of a rope tied securely around the head. Some victims were forced to kneel on a prayer stool studded with nails while others were branded with a red hot cross.
• Others suffered the torture of the slipper, a large red hot metal boot that fried the foot or dissolved the flesh when filled with boiling glue.
• Another favorite torture was to place small bags of gunpowder in the mouth or armpits of the victim which were then set alight.
• Others had burning matches or tapers placed between their fingers and toes.
• One gruesome torture involved a large bowl filled with rats which was turned upside down on a victim's bare stomach. A fire was lit on top of this container, causing the rats to panic and burrow into the victim's bowels.
• A grim device that was widely used in Germany was the iron maiden which crudely resembled the Virgin Mary. It featured two large doors lined with sharp spikes which, when closed, pierced the victim's arms, legs, stomach, chest, bladder, genitals, eyes and shoulders. It was said the victim could survive up to two days pinned in this device if left to expire.
• Homosexuals sometimes found themselves being lowered naked on to a red-hot spike in a torture known as the chambre chaufee. This was the church approved method for interrogating gays until 1816. Currently gays and pedophiles are numerous in the Papist clergy.
• Those convicted of sodomy, male or female, were tied upside down and their bodies sawn through until the navel was reached. An inverted position ensured oxygen reached the brain so the victim remained conscious throughout the ordeal

• Those who survived the torture chamber invariably found themselves convicted of their crimes. Rarely was the accused ever acquitted.
• In many cases, particularly in Germany, victims suffered further torments on their way to the stake or gallows.
• At Bamberg, women had their breasts ripped off by red hot pincers while elsewhere others had their hands chopped off at the place of execution.
• In many cases the executions were tortures in themselves: burning at the stake; skinning or flaying alive; breaking with the wheel.
• Many victims were drawn and quartered or disemboweled, whereby the intestine was slowly pulled out through an incision made above the solar plexus.

http://www.torturamuseum.com/this.html

To be continued under this same heading.

[Saint Nicholas]

In discussing the cruelty of Papal satanism it would be extremely unfair to not mention another of Rome's faithful sons. Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98): Loyal Spaniard, Dominican monk, inquisitor, and torturer.

torquemada 2.jpg

The Inquisition underwent special development in Portugal, Spain and their colonies. The Infanta Isabella chose him as her confessor while at Segovia, and when she succeeded to the throne of Castile in 1474 he became one of her most trusted and influential councilors.

Pope Sixtus IV endorsed (1483) the creation of an independent Spanish Inquisition presided over by a high council and grand inquisitor. History has proven the first grand inquisitor of Spain, Tomas de Torquemada, to be a symbol of ultimate cruelty, bigotry, intolerance, and religious fanaticism. These are the virtues required to be counted among the “faithful” when defending Catholicism.

Its major targets were the Marranos (converts from Judaism) and Moriscos (converts from Islam), many of whom were suspected of secretly adhering to their original faiths. During the 16th century, Protestants and Alumbrados (Spanish mystics) seemed to be the major danger. Serving political and ecclesiastical ends, the Spanish inquisitors also exercised their dreaded missionary functions among the converted Indian populations of the Spanish colonies in America.

In the course of fourteen years (1485-1498) at least 2000 Jews were burnt as impenitent sinners.
Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable according to Papal law, Thomist theology, and were necessary for the preservation of Papal Spain. The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo (Chronicon magistrorum generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, fol. 80-81) calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order".

Not waiting to receive information (informants) on suspects, he ordered his inquisitors out into the field to hunt them down like dogs. His ruthless satanic blood-lust fanaticism and Papal loyalty was known to have inspired Hitler in his treatment of Jews over 500 years later. Torquemada established tribunals in various cities and laid down directions for the guidance of inquisitors. He was personally responsible for the deaths of some 2000 people (at minimum other historians claim more) and the torturing of many others.

Torquemada always saw to it that punishment was worse than death:

• Rather than simply burning victims at the stake they were often first roasted over a slow fire and then burned. Sometimes fat was rubbed on the soles of their feet so they would sizzle a while.
  
• Victims were stretched on the rack or bound with cords that cut through the skin and muscle down to the bone.
• Many were flailed at specified intervals with whips studded with knots or sharp blades.
• Fingernails and toenails were pulled out one by one and arms and legs were broken with blows of the mallet.
• Some victims were left to starve in their small, windowless cells;
• Others victims had their heads covered with steel helmets containing strategically-placed screws. These were tightened one by one, crushing noses or puncturing eardrums.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...ada/index.html
http://deanna-proach.suite101.com/th...isition-a93720

The Roman Catholic Church has been notorious throughout history for “excommunicating” many individuals, including some of their own devout Roman Catholics, who had opposed her corrupt practices and then compelling State authorities to execute the excommunicated individuals. An excellent example of such papal injustice was the excommunication (in 1497) and execution (in 1498) of the Dominican Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498), who had led a revival in Florence, Italy. His “crime”? Savonarola exposed the corrupt, immoral papal court of Pope Alexander VI (pope: 1492-1503).

In 1496, Torquemada retired from his honorable position of eminence and died two years later. He has, of course, never been excommunicated by the Papal church, having served the Vicar of Christ and The Queen of Heaven faithfully.

To be continued under this same heading.

[Saint Nicholas]

Before continuing, let's make a brief summary to this point. The inter-advental period from the Cross [Resurrection, Pentecost, Ascension] to Christ's second coming is considered the millennium, the latter 3.5 years of the 70th week, 1260 days, 42 months, and Time, Times, and Half Time. These terms depict the same period of time which grows and culminates into a final intensification shortly before Christ appears to destroy this shadow creation and usher in the New Heaven and Earth.

True Israel (The Israel of God) are Christ's elect saints only who are born and led of the Holy Spirit. They constitute the True Ekklesia, the bride of Christ. They are not a religious institution nor any denomination of religious institutions. They dwell by faith alone in the Kingdom of God/Heaven submitting to Christ their King. These Saints are uncompromising and defend the Gospel at all costs no matter what generation they have existed. These saints are not ecumenical and will not unite spiritually with those who preach and teach a false Christ and a false Gospel. Their unswerving love and devotion for the true Gospel and their husband Jesus Christ prohibits them exercising false unity/ecumenism which is an act and manifestation of spiritual adultery. Christs faithful saints from the beginning and throughout every successive generation to this day have obeyed the voice of their Lord and “came out from among them” having no part in pseudo-christian religious idolatry. Past, Present, and Future.

Re.18:4 “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying , Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

Our adversary is the Roman Beast (symbolic and syncretistic of all reprobates in the world) who are both political and religious in essence. Rome is motivated by the Red Dragon (Satan) who empowers this beast. The main religious and most deceptive manifestation of this beast are it's lamb-like characteristic (pseudo -christianity) which is a deceptive weapon/institution to destroy mankind and bring ill repute against the “Holy One” Jesus Christ. The Papacy has grown to be the most vocal, most powerful, and most evil of all her pseudo-christian allies. She is most deceptive for she claims to be Christ's true church but is none other than a usurper and an imposter.

The lamb-like beast originated and grew out from the apostasy that commenced during Paul the Apostle's day. This apostasy was watered and nurtured by the post apostolic “ heretical fathers” and their successors. Their blindness and hatred for the true gospel of Christ led them in the establishment of a Judeo/Pagan mystical and superstitious hybrid religion. This false religion (whore) wedded with the state to create war and bloodshed as a tool for it's missionary expansion and to crush all dissent.

Being that both the political and religious beasts draw their strength and authority from Satan, they will always be at war with themselves, mankind, and especially against all Christ's elect.

Mk. 3:26 “And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided , he cannot stand , but hath an end.”

Satan is a liar, deceiver, and a murderer, so as is with all his followers both political and religious.

We have seen thus far from history that Roman Catholicism had created for herself many enemies. Islam, Trinitarian Orthodox, Jews, Non-Trinitarians, Protestantism, and pretty much ANYONE who would not submit to her. Most importantly, she is the very enemy of Jesus Christ Himself.

Wherever there was (and is) human blood, the Papists must by all means be the world leaders in cornering the market on “bloodshedding”

French statesman Baron DePonnat stated the following in 1940: “Roman Catholicism was born in BLOOD, has wallowed in BLOOD, has quenched its thirst in BLOOD, and it is in letters of BLOOD that its true history is written.”

Rome to this point in her bloody Inquisition, found another enemy to focus her “holy?” attention. That being a group called Protesters. Later called Protestants, and currently are nothing more than “ants” as a result of the the Jesuit Counter-Reformation. The Protestant religions will be discussed in more detail in upcoming segments. We will continue to deal with Rome's intolerance in this segment.

The most faithful and loyal sons of Popery (among many) were the Spaniards. Not surprisingly, a Counter-Reformation developed to combat heresies (according to Papists) as promoted by the protesters, and bolster the doctrine and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. The undisputed leader of this counter-reformation movement was Spain led by another of her grand sons Ignacio de Loyola . Spain at that point of history was the dominant world power and closest ally of the Papacy.
In the previous segment we discussed the Spanish son and devil Tomas de Torquemada.

Tomas was an evil mass murderer, sadist, psychopath, and torturer. This man was so evil that 100 Charles Mansons' combined could not equal the wickedness and evil of Tomas.

tomas-de-torquemada-architect-of-torture-during-the-spanish-inquisition.jpg mansonAP3108_468x705.jpg


Ignatius de Loyola [1491-1556] was a priest, theologian, and Spanish knight. He founded the Jesuit order (Society of Jesus) and was it's first Superior General. Ignatius emerged as a leader in the counter-reformation.

jesuitseal.gif180px-Ignatius_of_Loyola_(militant).jpg


He allegedly experienced a vision of the Virgin Mary and the infant Jesus while at the shrine of “Our Lady of Montserrat” in March 1522. He and his cult followers later became the most adulate worshipers of the Marion cult. Ignatius himself was a mystic often flagellating and cutting himself.

He was "A mixture of piety and diplomacy, asceticism and worldly wisdom, mysticism and cold calculation: as was Loyola’s character, so is the trademark of this Order".. Les Jesuites (1875)

Ignatius is well known for his famous writings: “Spiritual Exercises” and “Constitutions” of the Society.
http://www.nwjesuits.org/JesuitSpiri...Exercises.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/va..._vatican13.htm

“The Society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the Constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of the Church, he had probably not even heard of the names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniard. The name "Societas Jesu" had been born by a military order approved and recommended by Pius II in 1450, the purpose of which was to fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian (Roman Catholic..added) faith. The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan lands or to Catholic countries; to Protestant countries only at the special request of the pope and to Germany, the cradle-land of the Reformation, at the urgent solicitation of the imperial ambassador. From the very beginning the missionary labours of the Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, China, Canada, Central and South America were as important as their activity in Christian (Papist..added) countries. As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the Counter-Reformation; the re-conquest of southern and western Germany and Austria for the Church (Papacy..added), and the preservation of the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to their exertions.”......... From the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclope..._of_jesus.html

The main duties of the Jesuit order are to subvert all lands and religions bringing them under the dominion of the Vicar of Christ by whatever means necessary. The Jesuits have been considered the “SS” of the Roman Catholic Church. They were successful at destroying Protestantism as a whole, but these devils can never defeat one of God's true elect saints.

Today, thousands of protestant men, woman, and clergy are leaving their churches and becoming Roman Catholics. Remaining Evangelical and Protestant churches are part of the World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches, or other ecumenical organizations, and are in ecumenical unity with their mother. They have become Papal sympathizers (fifth columnists) and repudiate the true Gospel taught by Paul the Apostle.

Documents such as ECT I, ECT II, Lutherans and Catholics Together, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, Postmillennial Reconstructionism, New Perspective on Paul, etc. are “Ipso facto” proofs and results of the successes of the counter-reformation and serve in the damnation of Protestantism.

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit

The below sight supplies some very interesting and documented material. Some of the videos have been pulled (censored) by “You Tube”. Disclaimer: This sight is listed only to provide information pertaining to Roman Catholicism. Not fully knowing their theological position I cannot fully endorse their theology.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/ratzinger.htm

The Catholic Church was obviously corrupt throughout the medieval days and from her beginnings. This corruption resulted in calls for reform and improvement. Pope John XII had open love affairs. Urban VI tortured and murdered some of his cardinals. Innocent VIII proudly acknowledged his illegitimate children and heaped church riches upon them. Simony and nepotism were rampant. Most efforts ended in the reformers being called heretics and dying for their troubles.

The influence of the reformers grew strong enough to survive, but only at the cost of millions of lives as the Protestant Reformation battled the Catholic Counter Reformation in towns and fields throughout Europe. Martin Luther's (still a Papist in that day) 95 theses, nailed to a church door, set off a fire storm of violence and blood. German princes managed to fight Catholic armies to standstill by 1555, which resulted in the Peace of Augsburg. Protestant "heretics" were allowed to live in Germany, but that level of tolerance was not extended to other countries.

Unfortunately, that "peace" didn't last. From 1618 to 1648 Europe experienced The Thirty Years' War which left Germany a wasteland after millions and millions were slaughtered. Catholic armies under the leadership of Catholic Emperor Ferdinand II kept defeating Protestant armies, but then made the mistake of trying to eliminate Protestantism completely, engaging in terrible repression and persecution. This caused new Protestant armies in foreign lands like Denmark and Sweden to be called up to oppose him. The result of all this was more bloodshed, and a victory for no one. An estimated drop of Germany's population from 18 million to 4 million. With too few people left to work the field and trade for goods, starvation and disease ravaged the miserable survivors. Such are the fruits of European Religion.

In France, the largest Protestant group was known as the Huguenots. They were mercilessly persecuted, and King Henry created a heresy court known infamously as The Burning Chamber because that was the standard punishment for heretics. On the night of August 24, 1572 , known as St. Bartholomew's Day, Catholic soldiers swept through Huguenot neighborhoods of Paris in a foreshadowing of what would happen to the Jews under Nazi rule.

http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

Thousands were slaughtered in their homes and other massacres timed for the same night occurred in cities across France. In response to this, Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics."

Pope Pius sent Catholic troops into France to aid in the repression efforts, ordering the army commander to kill all prisoners. Pius, unsurprisingly, was later canonized as a saint. In the Catholic Church, sainthood is an honor which goes not to the nicest person or to someone who has aided humanity, but to those Catholics who have done great deeds of wickedness to advance the cause of Catholicism. As a result of such horrific treatment, Huguenots fled France in large numbers. One group reached what would later become Florida , and when they were discovered by a Spanish expedition, all were violently killed.

In Flanders, all heretical Protestants were ordered executed and thousands were burned at the stake. But queen Mary was merciful to Protestants who recanted. Instead of burning, the men would be killed by a sword and women buried alive. Philip II, Spanish king and also ruler of Holland and Belgium, was positively obsessed with eliminating Protestantism and ordered that all prisoners be killed so that there would be no chance that they might escape through neglect or mistakes. The Duke of Alva was sent in and began what became known as the "Spanish Fury" in which thousands of Antwerp Protestants were killed and almost all "heretics" in Haarlem were massacred.

Are Papists truly repentant for their crimes against humanity? NO!

Did the peace treaty of Westphalia put an end to religious intolerance in Europe? NO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

Cardinal Lépicier, expressly supported by Pope Pius X, (Pope from 1903-14) declared the church's reign of terror was right, just because the church did it. He said: "The naked fact that the Church, of her own authority, has tried heretics and condemned them to be delivered to death, shows that she truly has the right of killing ... Who dares to say that the Church has erred in a matter so grave as this?"

A new manual of Church Law, specially authorized by Pope Leo XIII, written by a Papal professor, printed in a Papal press, was published. It was in Latin; and probably few Catholics in America will fail to be astonished to learn that the author states, and proves at great length, that the Church claims and has "the right of the sword" over heretics, and only the perversity of our age prevents it from exercising that right!

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, over which the Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope) presided, was formerly called the Holy Inquisition. It's not gone away, it's merely been renamed.

“Heretics may be not only excommunicated, but also JUSTLY PUT TO DEATH.” – “Catholic Encyclopedia”, Vol. XIV, Page 768

“The Catholic Church has the RIGHT and DUTY to KILL heretics because it is by fire and sword that heresy can be extirpated. …The only recourse is to PUT them to DEATH.” – Jesuit Dr. Marianus de Luca (Professor of Canon Law at the Georgian University in Rome; 1901)

“Protestantism of every form has NOT, and NEVER can have, any rights where Catholicity is triumphant.” – “Bronson’s Review”

“Non-Catholic methods of worshipping God must be branded COUNTERFEIT.” – “Living Our Faith”, by Flynn, Loretto, and Simon; a widely used high school textbook; Page 247)

“In themselves all forms of Protestantism are UNJUSTIFIED. They should NOT exist.” – “America”, January 4, 1941

“We declare it to be altogether NECESSARY TO SALVATION that every human creature should be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – Pope Boniface VIII

“Into this fold of Jesus Christ NO ONE can enter if not under the guidance of the Sovereign Pontiff; and men can securely reach salvation ONLY when they are united with him, since the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and represents His person on this earth.” – Pope John XXIII

“The true Church can tolerate NO strange churches besides herself.” – “Catholic Encyclopedia”, Vol. XIV, Page 786

“We believe that the rulers of a Catholic country have the RIGHT to RESTRICT the activity of those who would lead their people away from their allegiance to the Catholic Church. …They possess the RIGHT to PREVENT propaganda against the Catholic Church.” – Monsignor Francis J. Connell; American Roman Catholic theologian (“American Ecclesiastical Review”, January 1946)

“The Catholic Church is the ONLY organization authorized by God to teach religious truth and to conduct public religious worship. Consequently, they hold that any creed which differs from that of the Catholic Church is ERRONEOUS, and that any religious organization which is separated from the Catholic Church LACKS the approval and authorization of God. The very EXISTENCE of any other church is opposed to the command of Christ, that all men should join His one church. From this it follows that, as far as God’s law is concerned, NO ONE has a real RIGHT to accept any religion SAVE the Catholic Church.” – Monsignor Francis J. Connell (American Roman Catholic theologian; “Freedom of Worship, the Catholic Position”, a Roman Catholic pamphlet)

“The Roman Catholic Church, convinced through its divine prerogatives, of being the ONLY true church, must demand the right of freedom for herself ALONE, because such a right can only be possessed by truth, never by error. As for other religions, the Church will never draw the sword, but she will require that by legitimate means they shall NOT be allowed to propagate false doctrine. Consequently, in a state where the majority of people are Catholic, the Church will require that legal existence be denied to error, and that if religious minorities actually exist, they shall have only a ‘de facto’ existence WITHOUT opportunity to spread their beliefs… In some countries Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, RESIGNED at being FORCED to cohabit where they ALONE should rightfully be allowed to live.” – “Civilta Cattolica”, April 1948; official Jesuit organ; Rome

“NO man has a right to choose his religion. CATHOLICISM is the most INTOLERANT of creeds. It is INTOLERANCE itself. We might as rationally maintain that two and two does not make four as the theory of Religious Liberty. Its impiety is only equaled by its absurdity.” – John Hughes (Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York; statement made in 1864)

ROME must ALWAYS be the center of ALL Christianity and the POPE must be the head.” – Pope John Paul II [pope: 1978-2005]

Question: “Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of ‘Church’ with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?”

Response: “According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do NOT enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery CANNOT, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.” – “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” (A catechetical decree of the Roman Catholic Church which was released by Pope Benedict XVI on July 10, 2007)

“The Bible is NOT for the people; whosoever will be saved must RENOUNCE it. It is a FORBIDDEN book. Bible societies are satanic contrivances.” – Pope Pius IV [pope: 1559-1565]

Although the Romans Catholic church currently "allows" it's members to read the Bible, they cannot interpret the scriptures nor formulate any opinion contrary to the Catholic church.

“NO ONE may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be BURNED.” – Council of Tarragona (Roman Catholic Church Council in 1234 A.D.)

“We PROHIBIT laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament. …We FORBID them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular The lords of the districts shall carefully SEEK OUT the ‘heretics’ in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely WIPED OUT.” – “Concil Tolosanum” (Decree of the Roman Catholic Council of Toulouse in 1229 – Pope Gregory IX)

The church has persecuted. Only a tyro in church history will deny that…one hundred and fifty years after Constantine, the Donatists were persecuted and sometimes PUT TO DEATH.
…Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of the church authorities. …When she thinks it good to use PHYSICAL FORCE, she WILL use it.” – “The Western Watchman” (Roman Catholic publication out of St. Louis) (Quote taken from “National Sunday Law” by A. Jan Marcussen)

“When confronted with ‘heresy’, she does NOT content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to FORCE, to CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, to TORTURE.” – H.M.A. Baudrillart (Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris)

“Stunned by the staggering growth of evangelical sects in Brazil, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have threatened to launch ‘HOLY WAR’ against Protestants unless they stop leading people from the Catholic fold. At the 31st National Conference of the Bishops of Brazil, Bishop Bohn called evangelicals a serious threat to the VATICAN’S INFLUENCE in his country. ‘We will declare a HOLY WAR ; don’t doubt it. The Catholic Church has a ponderous structure, but when we move we will SMASH anyone beneath us’.” – “Charisma” (May 1994 issue)

“Individual liberty in reality is only a deadly anarchy.” – Pope Pius XII [pope: 1939-1958]; April 6, 1951

“It is NOT lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, or writing, or religion, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.” – Pope Leo XIII (“Libertas”; 1903)

“The unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one’s thoughts is NOT inherent in the rights of citizens and is by NO MEANS worthy of favor and support.” – Pope Gregory XVI [pope: 1831-1846]

“The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, are a MOST PESTILENTIAL ERROR – a PEST, of all others, most to be dreaded in a State.” – Pope Pius IX (pope: 1846-1878; Encyclical Letter; August 15, 1854)

“The State has NOT the right to leave every man free to embrace whatever religion he should deem true.…The Church has the RIGHT to REQUIRE that the Catholic religion shall be the religion of the State, to the EXCLUSION of ALL OTHERS. …CURSED be those who assert liberty of conscience and of worship and such that maintain that the Church may not employ FORCE.” – Pope Pius IX (pope: 1846-1878; “Syllabus Errorum” of December 1864)

“FASCISM is the regime that CORRESPONDS MOST CLOSELY to the concepts of the CHURCH OF ROME.” – “Civilta Cattolica” (official Jesuit organ)

“The church seeks not virtue, but herself, her aim and her recruitment; her true concern is the constant swelling of her ranks, the strengthening of her power. Are you then surprised at her predilection for Germany, despite the latter’s crimes? The (R.C.) Church and Germany? But they are sisters. Both love themselves for themselves alone and are hypnotized by their own powers; both know perfect organization, discipline, hierarchy and CONTEMPT OF LIBERTY; both know how to justify their methods; both exercise dissimulation and hypocrisy. In short, they both are opposed to the Christian spirit.” – Rene Boylesve (Roman Catholic; member of Acadamie Francaise; written during the First World War)

“Our ABSOLUTIST system, supported by the Inquisition, the strictest censorship, the suppression of all literature, the privileged exemption of the clergy, and arbitrary power of bishops, cannot endure any other than ABSOLUTIST governments…” – J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger (German Roman Catholic theologian and historian; “The Pope and the Council”; Page 23)

“…We do NOT accept it , or hold it to be any government at all… If the American Republic is to be sustained and preserved at all, it must be by the rejection of the principle of the Reformation , and the acceptance of the Catholic principle ” – “Catholic World” (August 1871; Page 735)

“The pope has the RIGHT to pronounce sentence of deposition against any sovereign.” – “Bronson’s Review”, Vol. I, Page 48

“The pope is the supreme judge, even of civil laws, and is incapable of being under any true obligation to them.” – “Civilta Cattolica” (official Jesuit organ)

“NO Catholic may positively and unconditionally approve of the separation of church and state.” – Monsignor O’Toole, Catholic University of America (1939)

“These false and perverse opinions [of democracy and individual freedom] are so much the more DETESTABLE, by as much as they…hinder and banish that salutary INFLUENCE which the Catholic Church, by the institution and command of her Divine Author, OUGHT FREELY TO EXERCISE, even to the consummation of the world, not only OVER individual men, but nations, peoples, and sovereigns.” – Pope Pius IX (pope: 1846-1878; Quanta Cura; December 8, 1864)

The Spanish philosopher George Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to REPEAT it.”

Romes most recent murder sprees were the Vatican’s Holocaust in Roman Catholic Fascist Croatia in the early 1940s, where a Fascist State and the Roman Catholic Church collaborated on a vicious religious genocide that took the lives of up to one million Serbian Orthodox. However Hitler (German Fascist), Franco (Spanish Fascist), and Mussolini (Italian Fascist) were Rome's great sons and allies. They performed their holy service to the Pope in the slaughter of millions. Woman and children included.

William Ewart Gladstone [1809-1898], British statesman and prime minister, made the following statement in a letter to Earl Aberdeen: “No more cunning plot was ever devised AGAINST the freedom, the happiness and the virtue of mankind than ROMANISM “

On March 16, 1960 Raymond Frazier warned: “Persecution of non-Catholics in Catholic-controlled countries should WARN Americans as to what will happen here if the pope ever gains full control of this country. Rome NEVER changes.”

Author David W. Daniels, in the Sept./Oct. 2005 issue of the “Battle Cry” newsletter, stated: “…The new pope, Benedict XVI, was recently in Germany for World Youth Day 2005. He urged Europe to return to its ‘Christian roots’. What does that mean? It means a time when kings lived in FEAR of the POPE. This new Roman Catholic leader was formerly the Chief Inquisitor, head of the ‘Holy Office’ of the Inquisition. Is it any coincidence that this German pope is still referred to by his colleagues as ‘Der Panzerkardinal’? …Get ready, folks, and hang onto your Bibles. What this new pope really wants is a 21st CENTURY VERSION of the DARK AGES.”

The Marquis de Lafayette, French statesman and general, stated: “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are DESTROYED, it will be by the subtlety of the ROMAN CATHOLIC JESUIT PRIESTS, for they are the most crafty, dangerous ENEMIES to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.”

I myself can even attest to the power and hatred of the Catholic institution. In 1983 and 1984, I held a radio ministry/program in Cleveland, Ohio entitled “No Compromise” My goals were to proclaim the Gospel and to expose the falsehoods of Roman Catholicism and ecumenical unity. I was received with bitter and harsh reprisals from both Catholics and Protestants.

One morning I awoke to only find garbage spewed all over my front lawn.

Another day a member of the “ Blue Army of Our Lady Of Fatima” came to my home and threatened me with personal violence.

I was thrown out of an Evangelical church in front of 250 people on a Wednesday evening service. What was my crime? I stated the Roman Catholic religion was false. As I walked out the doors, the Pastor led the congregation to all laugh at me.

I received a threatening letter one day with a picture of a bloody dagger that looked like a cross. On the back of the picture it said “this is your blood”

Finally the Cleveland Catholic “diocesan office” under it's then leader Bishop Pilla sent a letter to the radio station demanding that my radio program be canceled. It was!

Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." These false views are held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense religious beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when religious faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.

Politicians are politicians. They say and do what is necessary to “get the votes”. They suck up to the religious clergy who control the laity. The clergy are no better. They anesthetize the ignorant and lead them into false hopes, bondage, and tyranny. Thus they have been mentally prepared to serve as mind slaves for both the state and the clergy.

Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that ugly purpose. Only Jesus Christ can truly unite His people. Christ has done that in the past and is doing that now and forever.

“Let us dare to read, think, speak and write.” – John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States; statement made in 1765)

Next we will discuss Protestantism. To be cont.

[Saint Nicholas]

The Reformation And Protestantism. “The Good” “The Bad” And “The Ugly”


zwingli.jpgrefwall.jpgluther.jpgcalvin2.jpg


As a sinner who is saved (Justified) by Jesus Christ alone, and as someone who loves and serves Jesus Christ above all, I see and experience the fruit of His Gospel through the eyes of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures alone. I believe that the only way to understand the Gospel is through the eyes of Christ mainly, and Apostles, especially Paul. Apart from Holy Spirit regeneration and illumination, the scriptures are but only a collection of historical writings void of life for reprobate humanity. It is these reprobates who use the scriptures to create hordes of religious sects and or denominations both christian in name and non christian. They pick and choose from scripture moral principles and devise theological recipes to establish plans of salvation, cultures and societies. However when the wind shifts directions these same moral principles once advocated by their purveyors, are discarded as being too harsh, narrow or biased. So it is now OK to be a homosexual christian and even a homosexual clergy person. It is OK to teach all roads and religions lead to the same god above. Moral and Scriptural absolutes have been dethroned in favor of Moral and Theological Relativism.

These divisions serve a twofold purpose. One, in the damnation of the reprobate, and two in the blessing of Christ's elect saints. It damns the reprobate for they will be forever divided over issues that have no relevance as too the person and work of Jesus Christ. It blesses the elect in that we who have “eyes” to see can deduce their drivel, hence exposing and departing from them.

When Jesus Christ resurrected my dead soul and gave me eternal life in Christ, I had no further need of the useless and evil Roman Catholic religion. So I departed from the Roman Catholic religion. When one possesses true faith in Christ alone, religion (whether Catholic, Protestant, or other) then becomes obsolete, for religious exercise can never save or regenerate anyone. Any continuation of will-worship (religious exercise) can only serve to hamper ones true faith and freedom in Christ.

I did not leave one religion (Catholicism) to join another religion or religions (Protestantism-Evangelicalism). I was saved FROM religion TO Christ.

The term “Protestant”.... In 1517 AD due to 1200 years of catholic abuse, mass murder, extortion, superstition, and wickedness, Martin Luther began to officially dissent from the established Latin Papacy by speaking out on the subject of indulgences (95 thesis). Luther the still catholic theologian and his colleagues effectively branched off and started a new form of Christian expression which was accepted by many princes and towns of the German empire. As the wicked Pope decided how best to handle Luther, the debates commenced, with the Pope, Emperor and Catholic controlled governments on one side and members of Luther's new “group” on the other.

In 1526 a meeting of the Reichstag, [a form of German imperial parliament], issued a proclamation (Recess) on the 27th August stating that each individual government within the empire could decide which religion they wished to follow. However, a new Reichstag which met in 1529 [Second Diet of Speyer ] was not so amenable to the Lutherans and the Emperor canceled the Recess. In response, the followers of the new church issued the 'Protest', which protested against the cancellation on April 19th. The Diet voted to end the toleration of those who followed the teachings of Martin Luther within Germany, which had previously been granted at the first Diet in 1526.

Despite differences in their theology, Southern German cities aligned with Swiss reformer Zwingli joined other German powers following Luther to sign on to the ‘Protest’ as one. They thus became known as Protestants, those who protested. This was a duel protest by protesting both the political and theological tyranny of the Papacy. This eventually led to a bloody “inquisition” against “protestors” as previously discussed.

A true regenerate elect child of God and follower of Jesus Christ is in essence and belief “anti-Roman catholic” or in other words, a true protestor. However all “anti-catholics” can not be considered true elect followers of Jesus Christ.

For example, Talmudic Judaism and Islam are inherently anti-catholic, at least in the past. Hardly they can be construed as followers of Christ. Even among professing christians there are anti-catholic groups that promulgate a false gospel. Some are even anti-trinitarian.

“The Good”

In no specific order, I will cite what I believe to be the greatest achievements of the reformation. A reformation and protest that gave the world hope against the second most evil enterprise on earth, the Papacy. The first of course being Israel that cried out “crucify Him”. However that Israel is gone for good, but it's hatred for Christ and the Pauline gospel, lives spiritually in the lamb-like beast.

The core of true and original Protestant teaching lies within the “Five Solas”, the heart of True Protestant theology so to speak.

Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone)
Sola Fide (by faith alone)
Sola Gratia (by Grace alone)
Solus Christus or Solo Christo ( Christ alone – through Christ alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone)

From these points mankind was given some extremely good Christ honoring theology. Some not so good in my opinion, but basic enough to grow and refine.

Essentially, Original Protestantism is characterized by emphasis on the scriptures as the sole source of infallible truth and the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone in the imputed merits of Christ alone. In addition, Original Protestants have traditionally encouraged private interpretation of the scriptures by individuals rather than relying on the interpretation of a church group (for example as in the case of Roman Catholicism with its Magisterium, or alleged teaching authority). As a result of differing theological interpretations, various groups emerged such as Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. each holding their own distinctive doctrines. Papists call this the weakness of Protestantism, although I differ. I would rather shop at a fruit market that offers many baskets of apples to choose from. I am free to look into each basket and pick out the good fruit from each basket and leave the rotten fruit behind. This would be a much better exercise than having to look into only one basket (Catholicism) that contains all rotten apples.

The original Protestant ethic was clear. The absolute supremacy of the “Word”, the Grace of Christ, the general priesthood of all believers, righteousness by imputation and faith alone.

The Reformers saw themselves as returning to a bibliocentric form of Christianity. This was a reaction to what they perceived as a corruption of Christ by the Papists. The Reformation was seen as necessary to restore the church to correct doctrine and practice.

The original Protestant school of prophetic understanding (eschatology) was mainly “a-millennial”, and they were unanimous in addressing the Papacy as the Beast of Revelation 13 and also the great whore of Re. 17-18. This was due primarily to Rome's false gospel of Justification through and by meritorious good works. However many other Papal falsehoods led them to this conclusion and rightly so.

The zenith of Reformation expression (in my opinion) were written in the canons of Dort. It is the opinion of this author that “Dort” does not express the full and complete sovereignty of God as revealed in the scriptures and contains gross and superstitious errors.

See: http://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfm

Overall, the reformation ideals provided mankind a framework to think and act, independently, politically, spiritually, and temporarily without reprisal from Rome and her puppet governments.

Unfortunately, reformation theology did not discard the humanistic platonic philosophies of Augustine in their attempt to understand Pauline soteriology. This love affair with Augustine would eventually result in their demise as we see this very day.

The original Protestants may have broke from Rome politically, and ecclesiastically, but spiritually numerous cancerous seeds of Catholicism still remained in their bowls.

Protestantism as a whole and a political movement is DEAD today. The Jesuits had seen to that. The Papacy reached out and gathered her wayward children. Now they are safe and secure in their mothers arms. She will gently guide them into perdition. For she herself is damned to that very end.

Next “The Bad” to be cont.

[Robert R. Higby]

"Reformed". What's in a word? Who has truly considered that it means Roman Catholicism sworn off of certain gross and obvious sins? And what about "Protestant". Are we protesting in hope that a hopelessly apostate organization will repent?

The New Testament gospel is exalted and re-discovered through RESTORATION of the content of God's ancient revelation and REGENERATION by the Holy Spirit. Not reformation of the great apostasy.

[Saint Nicholas]

"Reformed". What's in a word? Who has truly considered that it means Roman Catholicism sworn off of certain gross and obvious sins? And what about "Protestant". Are we protesting in hope that a hopelessly apostate organization will repent?

The New Testament gospel is exalted and re-discovered through RESTORATION of the content of God's ancient revelation and REGENERATION by the Holy Spirit. Not reformation of the great apostasy.

I agree with you Robert. The next segment on Protestantism is not going to be appreciated by the "reformed" community. If we are not already 100% alienated from them by now, this next segment will probably do the trick, and I personally don't care in the least bit.

[Highlyfavored]

The next segment on Protestantism is not going to be appreciated by the "reformed" community. If we are not already 100% alienated from them by now, this next segment will probably do the trick...

I can hardly wait!

[Saint Nicholas]

“The Bad”

In previous segments we showed the intolerance between the Latin West and the Orthodox East. Both pseudo-christian parties were shedding each others blood over theological, political, and downright idiotic and superstitious issues that have absolutely no relevance at all to scriptural faith. Then we showed Papal brutality against Protestant dissenters.

Did the early reformers practice what they preached?

Were Protestants innocent of being intolerant? Where they innocent from pro-active blood-shedding? Were they innocent from superstition? Were they innocent from hatred and bigotry? Were they innocent from harsh and extreme legalism? Were they innocent from perpetuating tyranny? We shall see.

If humanity strives to live peaceable and civil amongst one another, there must be an honest effort to admit wrongdoing. Religious and political groups are the least at truly expressing humility and fess up to their crimes against humanity. Protestants included. But why? Why do men and governments not learn from the past? Why do the religious and political entities continue to repeat the same mistakes and past crimes against humanity? These answers lie in the very depravity of human nature and the Sovereignty of God. Principles the “reformers” taught but hardly learned for themselves.

God is active in blinding men from truth and hardening of their hearts. Unless God through Jesus Christ brings a revival of truth in the hearts of men, darkness will prevail and the world will continue practicing the most wicked forms of hatred, bigotry, superstition, and intolerance against his fellow man. Were not talking about swords, spears, and primitive weaponry as employed in the far past, but current state of the art “killing” apparatuses. From nuclear, biological, and thermal forms of blood-shedding all way down to the simple hand gun and modern day sophisticated methods of torture.

Skeletons in the closet need to be brought into the classroom, surveyed, and exposed. Historical facts are historical facts. Most Protestants [clergy and pew-warmer] are unaware of their history. They [the facts] for the most part have been ignored or perhaps purposely censored by their clergy leadership.

One would think that with 1,400 years of religious history to analyze [100 AD to 1517 AD] the early protestants would have made greater strides in conforming [not reforming the Papacy] to scriptural christianity by striving for a witness to Christ and the Gospel that would be above all reproach and objective criticism. Unfortunately that did not entirely happen in actual practice.

The witch-hunt craze did not end when protestants [political and ecclesiastical] started to gain control over their respective countries. This superstition was very much prevalent in both Lutheran and Calvinistic societies. The witch hunt craze did not phase out till the mid 18th. century.

The early 16th.century Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin were not as enlightened as some have been led to think. They were as much brutal, superstitious, intolerant, and repressive individuals as their Papal counterparts. Both Luther and Calvin were not given the light to shake off Augustine, Aquinas, and the “fathers”. Much of reformed theology still contains the ignorance and superstition of their ancestors. Much less an ecclesiastical system that closely resembles the Papacy.

The Protestants' treatment of “herbal healers and mid-wives”were no less humane than that of the Papists.

Luther, in a 1522 sermon, charged "witches" with a host of supernatural behaviors, including transformation into different animals, accusations which, to the rationally thinking mind, would be ludicrous indeed. This demonstrates at least to me, that Luther's motive for breaking away from the Catholic Church was not primarily a restoration of Pauline Christianity but to establish a non-Papal religious orthodoxy of his own as he seen fit.

Luther shared some of the superstitious views about witchcraft that were common in his time. He stated that, with the help of the devil, witches could steal milk simply by thinking of a cow.

On 25 August 1538 there was much discussion about witches and sorceresses who poisoning chicken eggs in the nests, or poisoning milk and butter. Luther said: "One should show no mercy to these [women]; I would burn them myself, for we read in the Law that the priests were the ones to begin the stoning of criminals.".....WA Tr 4:51–52, no. 3979 quoted and translated in Karant-Nunn, 236. The original Latin and German text is: "25, Augusti multa dicebant de veneficis et incantatricibus, quae ova ex gallinis et lac et butyrum furarentur. Respondit Lutherus: Cum illis nulla habenda est misericordia. Ich wolte sie selber verprennen, more legis, ubi sacerdotes reos lapidare incipiebant.

The Reformation did not convert the people of Europe to Protestant forms of Christianity through preaching and catechisms alone. It was a 300 year period of witch-hunting, and heresy hunters who aided protestant causes from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. Protestants used the persecution of witches to wipe out dissent, subordinate the individual to authoritarian control, and openly denigrate women.

The witch hunts were a continuation of pseudo-christianity's vilification of women. The second century “father” Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." The heretic Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

"And do you not know you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil 's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God 's image, man. On account of your desert -- that is, death -- even the Son of God had to die."

But what about Adam, Mr. Calvin? You know, the Adam whom according to you and Augustine was endowed with an alleged “glorious free and sinless will”. A will if demonstrated perfectly could have attained Eternal bliss without the merits of Christ. Was it not Adam who believed the woman and ate of the fruit Mr. Calvin? Should not men rather than woman bear some blame for plunging mankind into the depths of sin and degradation? Why then all this hatred toward woman Mr. Calvin and Mr. Luther?

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer." Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..." The thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas [you know, the proto-protestant according to Gerstner] suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then." Lutherans at Wittenberg following their fathers Augustine and Aquinas debated whether women were really human beings at all.

Women are often understood to be impediments to spirituality in a context where God reigns strictly from heaven and demands a renunciation of physical pleasure. The Inquisitors who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum, "The Hammer of the Witches," explained that women are more likely to become witches than men:

"Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men;' because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked' whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged."

King James I, [tutored by George Buchanan, a staunch Calvinist] estimated that the ratio of women to men who "succumbed" to witchcraft was twenty to one. Of those formally persecuted under his regime for witchcraft, between 80 to 90 percent were women.

The reformers were as ignorant as the “fathers” and “Papists” when it came to woman and superstition.

Luther's consubstantiation is but another example of superstition. And "reformed" sacramental theology is but another mystical delusion of the mind.

Witches [primarily woman] in Protestant Europe were held accountable for nearly every problem. Any threat to social uniformity, any questioning of authority, and any act of rebellion could now be attributed to and prosecuted as witchcraft. Not surprisingly, areas of political turmoil and religious strife experienced the most intense witch hunts. Witch-hunting tended to be equally as severe in Protestant strongholds in Germany, Switzerland, France, Poland and Scotland as in more homogeneously Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain. Witch-hunters declared that "Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft." Yes I would agree, but a rebellion to God alone, not a rebellion [dissent] against wicked, despotic, and evil masters. In 1661 Scottish Protestant royalists proclaimed that "Rebellion is the mother of witchcraft." And in England the Puritan William Perkins called the witch "The most notorious traytor and rebell that can be..." Hence in Protestant lands when the peasants who were exploited by the wealthy monarchical aristocrats complained and sought redress, these act were considered “rebellious” and thus construed as acts of “witchcraft.

According to Luther any acts of dissent, whether honorable or dishonorable were considered the “devils work” see: http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/peasants1525.html

If dissent can be construed as the handiwork of the devil, then Luther, Swingli, and Calvin should be considered devils. Well Rome thought that, but the reformers who were dissenters themselves never considered themselves to be devils. Only those who did not “conform” to their new found sects were saved for that treatment.

The Reformation played a critical role in convincing people to blame witches for their societal problems. They were considered the “medieval terrorists” of their day. Particularly in Protestant countries, where Papal superstitious protective rituals such as crossing oneself, sprinkling holy water or calling on saints or guardian angels were no longer allowed, people felt defenseless. As Shakespeare's character, Prospero, says in The Tempest:

"Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
which is most faint..."

It was most often the sermons of both Catholic and Protestant preachers that would instigate a witch hunt. The witch hunts in Salem, Massachusetts, were similarly preceded by the fearful sermons and preaching of Samuel Parris in 1692.

The climate of fear was continued by churchmen of the Reformation and led to countless deaths of accused witches quite independently of Papal inquisitional courts or procedure. For example, in Protestant England where there were no inquisitional courts and where witch-hunting offered little or no financial reward [extortion] many women were killed for witchcraft by mobs. Instead of following any judicial procedure, these mobs used methods to ascertain guilt of witchcraft such as "swimming a witch," where a woman would be bound and thrown into water to see if she floated. The water, as the medium of baptism, would either reject her and prove her guilty of witchcraft, or the woman would sink and be proven innocent, albeit also dead from drowning.

As some protestant people continued the belief that the world was the terrifying realm of the devil uncontrolled by God, they blamed witches for every misfortune. Since the devil they believed authored all the ills of the world, his agents the witches, could be blamed for them. Witches were thought by some to have as much if not more power than Christ. This faulty belief was a continuance of the “father's” logic that God was not the “author of sin and evil”. Witches they believed could raise the dead, turn water into wine or milk, control the weather and know the past and future. Witches were held accountable for everything from a failed business venture to a poor emotional state. A Scottish woman, for instance, was accused of witchcraft and burned to death because she was seen stroking a cat at the same time as a nearby batch of beer turned sour. Witches now took the role of scapegoats that had been long held by Jews. Any personal misfortune, bad harvest, famine, or plague was seen as their fault.

Churchman are not doctors. To relieve labor pains, as a Scottish clergymen put it, would be "vitiating the primal curse of woman..." The introduction of chloroform to help a woman through the pain of labor brought forth the same opposition. According to a New England minister:

"Chloroform is a decoy of Satan, apparently offering itself to bless women; but in the end it will harden society and rob God of the deep earnest cries which arise, in time of trouble, for help."

Martin Luther wrote, "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth -- that is why they are there." It is hardly surprising that women mid-wives who not only possessed medicinal knowledge but who used that knowledge to comfort and care for other women during childbirth would become prime suspects of witchcraft according to Luther.

The Lutheran Judge, Benedict Carpzov (1595-1666), claimed to have sentenced 20,000 devil worshipers. In 1635 published his Practica Rerum Criminalum to support systematized legal persecution of witches. Under him, 20,000 death warrants for arrest, torture and execution of German witches took place. Carpzov, even argued that under the most excruciating torture, witches were likely to give a false account, but it should still be employed. This reformed Lutheran even read the bible, cover to cover over fifty three times and took the Lutheran Mass each week.

Luther, in addition to his intense anti-Semitism, see: Martin Luther - On the Jews and Their Lies
strived to encourage the adoption of his version of Protestantism as the state-sponsored religion of numerous German principalities, at the expense of the religious freedoms of those principalities' citizens. Where was Luther's freedom of conscience in all this? His intolerance extended even to the Zwinglians in Switzerland, with whom he exhibited only a minor disagreement over his superstitious doctrine of consubstantiation.

John Calvin's description of witches in the Institutes of the Christian Religion even more transparently revealed his true motives of combating dissension from his version of Protestantism. Calvin draws, from his passage on witchcraft, the conclusion that "we have to wage war against an infinite number of enemies." Calvin might have included under this category anyone who did not conform to the declarations of his strict church government in Geneva.

Calvin's autocratic policies were to stringently oversee people's private lives, church attendance, and intellectual expression, and ensure that nothing they said or did would displease God. It should therefore come as no surprise that Geneva experienced a far larger number of witch hunts than most other major European cities. H.C. Erik Midelfort's statistics show Geneva as having experienced 95 cases of witch persecution over 125 years, almost two and a half times more than had occurred in the entire Department of the Nord in France during 137 years.

Calvin was frank about his use of the witch craze to enforce the power of his own theocratic [reconstructionist] order, stating in the Institutes that he had brought up the entire issue "in order that we may be aroused and exhorted," i.e., rallied behind Calvin's religious movement.

Witch hunts were neither small in scope nor implemented by a few aberrant individuals; the persecution of witches [another name for heretics, non-conformists, and dissenters] was the official policy of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches. The Church invented the crime of witchcraft, established the process by which to prosecute it, and then insisted that witches be prosecuted. After much of society [rational thinkers] had rejected witchcraft as delusional superstition, some of the last to insist upon the validity of witchcraft were among the religious clergy, both Protestant and Catholic. Under the pretext of first heresy and then witchcraft, anyone could be disposed of who dared to question “the authority” or the “Protestant Christian church".

Through the terror of the witch hunts, reformation Christians convinced common people to believe that magic was evil [true], That there was a powerful devil,[true] and that women were most likely to be his agents [absolutely false]. The vast numbers of people brutalized and killed, as well as the impact upon the common distorted perception of God, make the witch hunts one of the darkest chapters of human history.

Another prominent Protestant, John Wesley (1703-1791), the founder of the Methodist Church, wrote that anyone who denied the reality of witchcraft was in direct opposition not only to the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all ages and nations ... Thus giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible.

We understand what Wesley means here. To give up on "witch hunting" and "witch burning" is equal to giving up the Holy scriptures.

The protestant lands burned at least as many women for witchcraft as the Roman Inquisition burned men for heresy. However no one could beat the combined record setting numbers of the Roman church since the days of Constantine. Rome still holds that record. Her protestant daughters will never outscore their mother. The numbers executed as witches by the Protestants were not inconsiderable. In a ninety year period, between 1590 and 1680, 4,400 people were executed in Calvinist Scotland for witchcraft. In Anglican England, for a comparable period, 1542-1736, at least a few hundred people suffered the same fate. While most of those executed were women, even here men were not spared as well. When King James (1566-1625) met with a storm on his return voyage from Denmark, a Scottish physician was accused of using witchcraft to generate the tempest. He was tortured and finally burnt at the stake for witchcraft. In Protestant Scotland, the last legal execution for witchcraft happened in 1722: an old woman was burnt at the stake, accused of turning her daughter into a pony and riding her to a witches sabbat. As late as 1782, witches were still being burnt in Switzerland. The Protestants in New England were not to be left out as well. In the last decade of the seventeenth century, at least twenty people were executed for witchcraft in Salem Massachusetts by the holy and pious Puritans.

At least two hundred thousand people murdered in the witch hunts, and when the reformation came, Luther, Calvin and some their die-hard and loyal followers supported the continuation of hunting down those who practiced the ‘dark arts’.

“If the merits of Christianity [Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant..added] as a civilizing force are to be in any way determined by its influence in avoiding bloodshed; its record in the matter of witch-slaying alone serve to place it, in that regard, lower than any other creed.”..... J.M. Robertson

To be cont. under this same heading "the bad"

[Dans la Musique]

Thanks Nicholas, I've been very blessed in reading this thread. I love how the old testament is completely fulfilled in Christ!

[Saint Nicholas]

The Protestants continued practicing some errors of East and West professed christianity . Their faulty ecclesiology, although differing from one another to some degree, and marriage of Church and State to name a few, fared no better than that of Papal intolerance. Protestants should of learned that these previous models did not work because they were not scriptural. However in vain they proceeded in blindness further proving to elect mankind that conversion through acts of violent force and or punishment for non-compliance to their respective religious creeds did not work. Thus more blood was shed in the “Name of Christ”; this time, at the hands of Protestants.

Protestant roots are from the Latin West sect of pseudo Christianity. The Reformation and the various Protestant sects it gave birth to, were born of their mother Roman Catholicism and not of Greek Orthodoxy. The history of Protestantism, is undeniably the history of their Catholic ancestors with a heavy reliance upon the writings of the “fathers”. The reformation was not an attempt to dismantle the institutional church system as developed from the “fathers”, but was an attempt to reform it.

Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, to name a few dissenters, were all Papists in their early years. There was not complete harmony or solidarity among differing Protestant groups as one may think.

Luther and Zwingli had major theological differences and strong clashes with one another. The Marburg Colloquy is one example.

A group of professed christians, the “Anababtists” were hated by both Papists and the magisterial reformers. This hatred lies in the very religious nature of man. When religious sects are small and wield no great political power they preach tolerance for their own self survival. But when and if they gain the support of large numbers of people along with the machinery of government they become intolerant, brutal, and tyrannical as evidenced by their hatred of Anabaptists and all those they deemed as heretics.

Zwingli and his followers threw the Anabaptists into the Lake of Zurich, enclosed in sacks.

In April, 1535 the Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund, Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog Catholics and Zwinglians before banishing them.

Luther's home territory of Saxony had instituted banishment for Catholics in 1527.

http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/...s/meneu-1.html

"That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death." -- Martin Luther

Where is Luther's freedom of conscience?

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/co...html#section-8

"Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. 'Why should we pity such men more than God does?' he asked, for he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell."

Where is Melanchthon's freedom of conscience?

John Calvin was not tolerant of Anabaptists either.

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/C296.html
http://www.rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm

The burning of heretics [those who dissent or disagree with an established church] was practiced by Rome's daughters also. Below are just a few names. Protestants burned Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, witches, and non-conformists. Roman Catholics burned Protestants, Anabaptists, witches, and non-conformists. Protestants and Papists were pyromaniacs and blood-letters. They were obsessed with fire and blood. These violent acts were mere tools to strike fear in the hearts of common men.

Total control over the souls of men were the real motives. Both political and religious entities always join forces to subdue mankind when it is in their best interests to do so.

Whether these below individuals were right or wrong on their respective beliefs, torture, burning, and murder serve no humane purpose at all. Clerics have no power to convert a dead soul and cause regeneration. That causality belongs to God alone. Another point to consider. Were these not human beings who had families and loved ones?. Did they not have parents, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and others who were friends and possibly cared for them? These among thousands that were slain were PEOPLE. Not just names in history.

Michael Servetus (1511–1553)
Anne Askew (1521–1546)
Joan Bocher († 1550)
George van Parris († 1551)
Matthew Hamont († 1579)
John Lewes († 1583)
Peter Cole († 1587)
Francis Kett († 1589)
Bartholomew Legate (1575–1612)
Edward Wightman (1566–1612), relapsed heretic

The reformers and their offspring displayed as much ignorance as their mother Rome.

The below site is also very helpful in ascertaining the true colors of Protestantism. As I mentioned earlier, “I was saved from Religion to Christ”. I did not leave the Roman religion to join the Protestant religion. Religion is a useless enterprise. Religion only serves to anesthetize and opiate the ignorant.

Once deceived men are molded into useful pawns that are easily manipulated by their religious and political overlords, they fight and die for their overlords for nothing more than global, religious and monetary conquests.

http://vanallens.com/exchristian/calvin.htm

The toleration act of 1689 was a great milestone in an effort to restore sanity once again in England. The countless number of lives that were destroyed due to Protestant and Catholic tyranny should serve as an example that religious wars/conflicts profit no one.

http://www.thegloriousrevolution.org...erationact.htm

When the Spanish, French, and English pushed westward in their efforts to “civilize” and “convert” the natives of South America, North America, and Canada to their different forms of so-called christian religion, more cruelty, hatred and bloodshed was exhibited in the name of Christ. The religionists never are able to learn from their bloody past.

Our Lord Jesus Christ and His truth was misrepresented throughout history due to religionists.

Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox in Europe continued murdering one another throughout the mid and late 20th century. World war II and Ireland are bloody examples.

One of the grossest lying statements ever to be embraced by Orthodox, Papists, and Protestants is this: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

The Apostolic witness teaches that outside of faith alone in Jesus Christ alone there is no Salvation.

Next “the ugly”

[Saint Nicholas]

Thanks Nicholas, I've been very blessed in reading this thread. I love how the old testament is completely fulfilled in Christ!

Thank you for your comment Dan.

My greatest growth, learning, and peace of soul and mind was given to me by Christ when I was no longer an official and integral part of "Organized Churchianity". And that's spoken from the bottom of my heart.

Nicholas

[Saint Nicholas]

“The Ugly”

This section will focus primarily with our current day religious apostasy. Before discussing this, lets briefly examine Protestantism as it moved Westward from Europe to North America.

The word “protestant” will be defined in this section as all religious groups that are not Roman Catholic or Orthodox but consider themselves christians. Protestantism will be inclusive of all who profess Jesus Christ in some way whether they are Trinitarian or non Trinitarian.

Religious individuals who abandoned Europe to explore a new land for themselves did so for mainly two reasons. One: To express their religious beliefs without fear, reprisal, torture and death from the wicked Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Papal controlled “monarch and church wedded” countries, which continued the slaughter of dissidents. Two: To exercise more control over their economic future.

European Monarchical and Ecclesiastical tyranny placed men in two categories. Either you were considered Prince/Clergy or Pauper/Laity. The “caste” system. The merchants of Europe were nothing more than serfs subjected to their “blue-blood” overlords both religious and political. In Europe, to dare question the church (Protestant or Catholic) was to question the state, and vice-versa.

The dominant religious groups in early colonial America looked something like this:

Connecticut: Congregational

Delaware: Anglican, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian

Georgia: Anglican, Moravian

Maryland: Roman Catholic, Presbyterian

Massachusetts: Congregational, Puritan

New Hampshire: Congregational

New Jersey: Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Quaker, Presbyterian

New York: Dutch Reformed

North Carolina: Anglican, Presbyterian, Free will( Arminian) Baptists

Pennsylvania: Amish, Brethren, Lutheran, Mennonite, Moravian, Quaker, Schwenkfelder, Presbyterian, Reformed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwenkfelder_Church

Rhode Island: Congregational, Reformed (Calvinistic)Baptists

South Carolina: Anglican, Huguenots

Virginia: Anglican, Presbyterian

An interesting change regarding church membership during American church history is easily evidenced. Due to the fact that church membership was not forced (mandatory) upon individuals through coercion, colonial church membership was relatively low. Rarely higher than a third of adult New Englanders and as low as five percent of adults in the Southern colonies. Yet without this coercive element, as witnessed in Europe, there was regular participation in religious activities and rather high church attendance. In a study of diaries, missionary reports sent back to England, and other fragmentary evidence suggests that in 1700 as many as half to three-fourths of the colonists attended some kind of religious function with some regularity although not officially uniting in membership to these churches.

From 1820 to 1850 there was an increase in denominational expansion due primarily to the principle of “American freedom of religion”. This led to the expansion of Episcopals, Unitarians, Methodists, Universalists , Mormons, Baptists of both Arminian and Calvinistic persuasions.

From 1850 to 1930 there were even more groups emerging. Adventists, Assemblies of God, Church of God (all types), Church of God in Christ, Evangelical United Brethren, Russian Orthodox , Pentecostals (all types), Polish National Church, Jehovah Witnesses.

From 1930 to the present, there has been a considerable amount of re-grouping and re-aligning of religious denominations. In addition to the denominations or groups already mentioned, hundreds of smaller denominations and groups developed by the middle 1900s.

We have already shown the Papacies hatred of American Constitutional principles and the Bill of Rights. These principles make it very difficult for Rome to exercise Religious and Political control. Without a centralized form of government, Rome would have to utilize various methods in her attempt to gain control over the political and religious climate of the USA. Once achieved Rome could use the military and machinery of the USA to fight proxy wars for both herself and her religious allies.

It was easy for Rome in Europe to control monarchs and princes in the past, but in America there are no Kings, Queens, and princes. To achieve control she must act to destroy the American Constitution and Bill of Rights by One: The Consolidation and centralization of power to the Federal Government. Two: Erode State constitutions and sovereignty. Three: Give the Executive branch unconstitutional dictatorial powers. Four: Consolidate and subordinate a sovereign state's constitution and legal system to the Federal legal branch of Government. Hence making the Federal Supreme Court the final court of opinion. In other words the political, moral and religious climate of the USA is decided [when necessary] by 9 unelected and handpicked Federal Judicial rogues. Rome was successful in her attempt.

For Rome to control the religious culture of America she must act to unite them to herself through the use of Ecumenism. To unite all world religions Rome employs Syncretism. This evil and wicked whore uses whatever means necessary to achieve ultimate power and control over the souls of men.

Romes greatest allies in the USA were the false ecumenical religious prophets of “Protestantism”. It is these people we will elaborate on.

To be continued under this same heading “the ugly”

[Saint Nicholas]

We are going to discuss a few popular false prophets that have aided the rise of the ecumenical movement post World War II to this current day. Two words that are important to remember are “ecumenism” and “inter-faith”. Inter-faith is another word for Syncretism for this section.

After Rome failed in her attempt to subdue Europe, Russia, The Mediterranean region, and middle East through her fascist war-sons Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Croats, and Slavic allies, she then concentrated her efforts on overcoming the nations that fought against her. It was payback time for Rome.

The 50's decade experienced a great growth of Roman Catholicism in the USA. Both in the construction of parochial schools and papist parishes. But she needed more than these. She must organize a “fifth column” of non-catholic sympathizers to aid and abet her treachery. Also within this time frame Rome started to undergo a complete public image makeover that culminated in Vatican II, which was just propaganda to make Rome appear more mild, evangelical, loving and tolerant. Only ignorant and religious people fell for this tactic.

Every devil in hell, her Jesuits, her controlled secret societies, religious false-prophets, and all her then controlled politicians were called upon to serve and lend her credence.

The below links are helpful to acquire a general understanding of these concepts.

http://www.websters-online-dictionar...ions/ecumenism
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...ons/interfaith

Ecumenism strives for a unity and cooperation within a specific religion. [ex: Christian , Islam, Judaism] Syncretism strives for unity and cooperation among the different religious groups. Both concepts are Satanic to the core and have no place in the lives of God's elect Saints. They are social tools used by the devil.

Satan's purpose and ultimate goal is to misrepresent Jesus Christ and His Gospel utilizing the lamb-like beast in promoting the false ideas that “all roads lead to god” “all religions are viable conduits to attain spirituality and salvation” “Salvation is dependent on the free will of man” “Salvation is maintained by good works and human participation” etc. Satan uses his false prophets to promulgate these false and damning ideas.

Some Ecumenical and Inter-Faith damnable catch phrases.

Roman Catholics are my brothers and sister in Christ.
Mormons and Jehovah witnesses are my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Arminians teach the Gospel
Roman Catholics and the Orthodox teach the gospel.
Lutherans teach the Gospel.
Pentecostals and Charismatics teach the Gospel.
All Protestants teach the Gospel.
Different understandings on Justification are not central and relevant to the christian faith.
All worldly religions serve the same god.
We are all children of God.
God loves everyone.
Jesus Christ died for every human being.
God never interferes with man's glorious “free will”
Jesus is not the only way, but just one path to god.
It's OK if Jesus was not divine. As long as I follow his teachings I am considered a good person.
The pope is a great moral leader.
The Talmudic Jews are Gods chosen people.
All Calvinists are the same and teach the Gospel.
God accepts us because our good deeds outweigh our bad deeds.
I'm a church member, therefore I'm part of the body of Christ.
I became a christian and part of the living body of Christ when I was baptized.
Just rededicate your life to Jesus by “coming forward” and you will be fine.
Accept Jesus as your Savior, become “born-again” and go back to your home church [including Catholic] and become more active.... a la. Billy Graham
You can receive Jesus by coming forward to the Priest and “eat him” in the Eucharist.

False prophet: Billy Graham, the Evangelical mini-Pope

Graham_Pope.jpg0811_graham_460x276.jpggrahamdr.gifth_att11.jpgbillpope.gif

To get a general idea of man worship from one of Billy's followers, I'll quote her entire article that arrived in my mail yesterday.

About Billy Graham by Marsha Tennant, Myrtle Beach, S.C.
“In the Protestant South I grew up in, Billy Graham was our pope. I mean that in the most respectful way. He was the beacon that directed our moral compass as children. When I strayed-and I did-the way back was through the strong North Carolina Piedmont cadences of the preacher man.

I knew the power that Billy had in our house. We had traveled to see him preach several times during the late 1950s. My daddy quoted him more than he did the Bible. It was close, but Billy won! The two of us would argue over faith and religion, and both of us used Billy's words in our defense. My mother taught Sunday school classes using his literature.

I have found solace in his words over the years as life's challenges have tried to beat me down or turn me in a different direction. Billy Graham has been my rock and anchor for my faith.

As I've watched Billy Graham accept illness and aging with peace, I can hear his song “Just as I Am” being sung in my ear, and I know that I owe part of my story and journey to this incredible preacher. He has touched many lives,and I am so glad that he is still part of mine”

What is sad about this short four paragraph article is that there is absolutely no mention of Jesus Christ. Quoting Billy more than the Bible? Using Billy's words to defend their faith?? Billy is her rock and anchor??? Billy is her pope???? Absolutely disgusting!

This woman's sentiments are shared by millions around the world. It reveals to God's elect saints the evil mentality of religionists. Reprobate and unregenerate mankind are men followers not Christ followers. This sickness is not confined to Grahamites only. You can easily insert another name in Grahams spot with identical results.

A rule of thumb that has worked for me [most of the time] in determining a religionist is this. When in face to face discussion, if a person talks more about their church, church programs, their pastor or other religious leaders they may follow, and only [sometimes never] mention Jesus Christ in some vague notion, this tells me what I am up against. I'm facing a “churched person” who's belief system is guided by men and not the Holy Spirit and scripture. It is these people that have no clue at all what constitutes the True Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Not only has Billy never ever proclaimed the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, but acting as a false prophet and tool of the Papacy, has done more harm than good. However this harm has been ordained by God to deceive reprobate mankind.

Billy Graham, his children, his followers, and those workers currently united with his “Evangelistic Association” are blind religious fools. Billy and his minions are ecumenical puppets of the Papacy and Papal controlled politicians. Billy has heralded the cause of Syncretism for many decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gtR8rp4ozw

Even a “low grace” semi-ecumenical premil. person like John MacArthur cannot stomach the blatant falsehoods of Billy Graham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3odPpDTRjOc

Rather than listing quotes from “Billy”, below are few links that serve that purpose. There are quite a bit more than these. These sights are listed only in relation to Billy Graham and are not cited to promulgate their theological views.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/graham/general.htm
http://www.cephas-library.com/evange..._the_pope.html
http://www.cephasministry.com/billy_..._the_real.html
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/...connection.htm
http://www.cephas-library.com/baptis...ly_graham.html

False prophet: Jerry Falwell, the Fundamentalist mini-Pope

T028273A.jpgjerry_65.gifJohn_McCain_And_Jerry_Falwell_sm.jpg

Being moral is not going to save anyone or any nation. This is a false gospel notion. Christ came to save His elect people from their sins, not to save any one country in particular. Jerry's free will false gospel and "Moral Majority" antics have only served to unite [ecumenically] all false gospel institutions ie. Catholic, Evangelical, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Charismatic.

Though Falwell professed to be a fundamental free will Baptist, which is heretical to say the least, in reality he was another groundbreaking ecumenist who helped pave the way for unity with Papists and her apostate daughters. He happily worked alongside Roman Catholics, Charismatics, Talmudic Jews, Mormons, and religionists of many stripes who are even opposed to the heretical doctrines that he professed to hold in his Baptist church.

Statements such as these sum up Falwell's corrupt religious mind.

In his January 1985 Morality Majority Report, Falwell called the pope and Billy Graham great moral and religious leaders. Falwell has also said that the pope is "the greatest in my lifetime," and that he knew "... many Catholic priests who are born again and who preach the same message I do."

Falwell and the Catholic priests preach the same message? But in the below you-tube clip Falwell condemns aspects of the true Gospel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBbcGIrgOds&feature=results_video&playnext =1&list=PL88B620D4219E9DA2

http://www.greatpreachers.org/jerry_falwell.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/falwell/general.ht
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/falwellgraham.html

To be continued under this heading.