Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

Meriam's Guy

The Priesthood ...what does the scriptures say?
Posted:Feb 27, 2008 4:42 am
Last Updated:Mar 2, 2008 12:02 pm
1040 Views

I. The New Testament teaches all believers are "priests" to God. There is no special class, as the Old Testament priesthood was abolished in the New Testament.

Exodus 19:5, 6
1 Peter 2:5, 9 "Ye also, ... an holy priesthood..."
Isaiah 61:6
Malachi 2:9, 10
Acts 2:46

II. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man. We can come directly to God;
we don't need an intermediary.


I Timothy 2:5
Hebrews 8:6
Hebrews 12:24

III. The book of Hebrews says the priesthood of Jesus Christ is an eternal priesthood.
Hebrews 7:3, 11-13, 15-17, 21-22, 23-25, 27-28; 8; 9; 10; 5:5-6
Hebrews 5:4-6
"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest
... As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedec." (citing Psalms 110:4)
Hebrews 7:11
"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the
people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest
should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after he order of Aaron?"
Hebrews 7:21
"For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that
said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchisedec"

IV. Catholicism requires its priests to remain celibate* (unmarried). Scripture, however,
teaches that "marriage is honourable in all..." Hebrews 13:4

A. Celibacy was not required of even the Old Testament priesthood.
Leviticus 21 and 22
Ezekiel 44:22
"Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is
put away: but the shall take maidens of the seed of the house
of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before."

B. Zachary was a married priest.

Luke 1:5, 13
"There was ... a certain priest named Zacharias ... and his wife..."

C. Bishops (pastors) of the early church married.

1 Timothy 3:1-4, 5, 12
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."
Titus 1:6
"... the husband of one wife, having faithful ..."

D. The first apostles (including Peter, the "first pope") married.

Mark 1:30
"But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever..."
Matthew 8:14
Luke 4:38
1 Corinthians 9:5

E. Forbidding marriage is wrong.

1 Timothy 4:1-3
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with
a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,
which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which
believe and know the truth."

F. God does not want us taking vows (i.e., of celibacy).

Ecclesiastes 5:4-6; Leviticus 5:4; Deuteronomy 23:21-23;
Matthew 5:33-37; Mark 6:23; James 5:12

G. Not only does God not require celibacy* (abstinence from marriage), but asceticism
is incapatible with Scripture.

Colossians 2:18-23

* "All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate 'for the sake of the kingdom of heaven' ... Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God."

Catechism, pg. 395, #1579

Diane Dew
0 Comments
Americans account for two-thirds of the global antidepressant and psychiatric drug market.
Posted:Feb 27, 2008 4:31 am
Last Updated:May 10, 2024 3:49 am
906 Views

think about that...2/3


An interview with Charles Barber, author of Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry is Medicating a Nation


Q. Americans account for two-thirds of the global antidepressant and psychiatric drug market. What drives Americans to want to be “comfortably numb”?

A. Americans have always liked the quick-fix, and overwhelming the enemy with technology ‒ whether it’s a foreign country or a medical problem. But we like it more than ever ‒ probably fueled by our ever-shortening attention spans, and the expectation that everything will or must occur at the click of a mouse. Another factor driving American drug-taking is our increasing isolation from each other, accompanied by a simultaneous pressure to achieve and perform, including the achievement of happiness. The result of all of this is Americans are rushing to the medicine cabinet, in particular for antidepressants ‒ the most prescribed drug in America ‒ in record numbers. We think that what we find there will eradicate our distress, numb out our internal discord, and help us keep with the Jones’s ‒ or the Gates’s.

Q. During the last decades, the public began to view mental illness as common and easily treated with medication: celebrities declaring their problems, ordinary people talking about their pills. Do you believe that attitudes toward the truly mentally ill have changed?

A. No. The truly mentally ill ‒ people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, for example ‒ are just as stigmatized as they’ve ever been. It may now be acceptable and even cool to talk about taking antidepressants at a party, and it certainly is cool for an actress to talk about her bout with depression on Oprah (as long as it’s now well under control and she has a new hit movie) but see what happens if you talk about hearing voices or having visions. People will move away as fast as they can. And with all the increased rates of psychiatric drug-taking by the masses, the number of people with really serious mental illnesses who are in proper treatment remains very low.

Q. Recently, there has been a considerable increase in cases of depression, bipolar disorder and other psychiatric conditions. Do you believe that these illnesses have become better diagnosed or simply overdiagnosed?

A. As usual with these kinds of things, it’s a bit of both. Certainly in the past, the great uncle who was just considered a little weird or isolative was really suffering from schizophrenia and nobody knew, or wanted to know. But things have gone very far in the other direction. Now everyday troubles are medicalized -- and medicated. Psychiatry has expanded the number of diagnoses so hugely in the last 30 years that one can now receive diagnoses and labels like “adjustment disorders” and “sibling-relational problems” and “phase of life problem.” Having a hard time adjusting to a new situation, or having difficulties with one’s family can be painful and disruptive ‒ but they are absolutely not medical problems. Major studies find that a quarter of Americans suffer from a psychiatric disorder annually, and most will be mentally ill at some point. I reject that view. Serious mental illness is a terribly serious condition that affects a rather small proportion of the population.

Q. You describe the difference between depression and Depression, the former being a part of human life, and the latter a major illness with specific symptoms. Why do you believe that the wrong people are taking the medications?

A. It is often the case that the less severe one’s condition, the more likely one is to be medicated and in treatment. Major Depression is a life-threatening medical disorder which has nothing to do with “feeling blue,” “bummed out,” and “having a hard time with the winter.” Confusing the two -- serious mental illness versus everyday life problems -- has led more than anything to the over-medicating of people with no true psychiatric conditions. Furthermore, even for serious conditions, drugs are not the only approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy has been shown to be as effective and possibly more effective than drugs for mild to moderate depression, and without the side effects and with lower relapse rates. Diet and exercise also can make a huge difference, even for Major Depression. In our zeal for the drugs, we overlook these approaches, which are highly effective but not as simple as taking a pill.

Q. You note that “each new generation of Americans either chooses a favorite drug or creates one…The War on drugs will likely never be won because Americans don’t want it to be won.” How is the war on illegal drugs is different or similar to the reliance of Americans on antidepressants?

A. The difference between legal and illegal drugs can be a much thinner line than one would think. The pharmacological profile of Ritalin, for example, is very similar to that of Cocaine. We also tend to blame our drug problems (whether legal or illegal) on others -- the Colombians, for example, for our cocaine addiction -- rather than looking inward and trying to identify why we are depressed and anxious and so drawn to drugs.

Q. You note that the combined profits of the top ten drug companies in 2002 were greater than the profits of all the other 490 Fortune 500 companies together. What is the role of commerce in the mental health field–for example, doctors being paid by drug companies to publish articles in medical journals?

A. The Mental Health industry now involves big money. Many of the top psychiatric drugs are among the best-selling drugs in the world. Antidepressants were the most profitable product in the most profitable industry in the world during the 1990s. Of course the mixture of all this money with medicine can have disastrous results. Studies show that drug trials conducted by people with a financial conflict of interest with the drug they are evaluating are almost five times more likely to report positive results.

Q. The role of drugs and is a hot topic. What are the risks for on these drugs, and for families who view the pills as having only positive effects?

A. The medicating of is particularly worrisome. Medicating involves changing their brains as they are developing in ways that nobody understands. Rates of medicating have soared in the last decade, as have the use of controversial psychiatric diagnoses for . As with adults, I think there is a small percentage of truly ill who have true diagnoses and need the drugs. ADHD drugs can be quite broadly effective, but the rise in the use of powerful antispychotics and mood stabilizers, and their combination, is disturbing and largely inappropriate.

Q. Psychiatry in America has evolved into a phase you name Corporate Psychiatry, where the emphasis is on profits and pill-only treatment coverage. Who is to blame for this focus on medication as the be-all, end-all of mental health–the insurance companies, the drug companies, or the doctors themselves?

A. While the drug companies have been highly manipulative in their marketing practices, ultimately I blame the doctors. The insurance and drug companies are doing what industry is supposed to do in America: make a profit. Attacking these industries for that is a little like criticizing a cougar for attacking a deer. Unlike the doctors, Big Pharma and the insurance industry have not taken a Hippocratic oath.

Q. The alternative approaches that you suggest–Stage of Change, Motivational Interviewing, and peer engagement–necessitate a paradigm shift: “recovery can exist within the context of illness.” You also say we need to listen closely to those who are mentally ill about what works for them. Could you summarize these approaches and the need for a reversal in how we view illness and treatment?

A. The lessons of the “recovery movement” -- led by people who have suffered from severe mental illness and improved -- are much different than the messages and marketing that comes from the drug companies about how to treat illness. Former patients say that getting better involves not the removal of all symptoms but learning how to live a meaningful life, even in the presence of on-going, if hopefully reduced, symptoms. Former patients also say that the social context is critical to getting better -- the strength of their relationships and supports makes a huge difference, as does finding something or somebody that makes one want to get better in the first place. They also say that they improve most when they are put “in charge” of their recovery, rather than being the passive recipient of a pill or merely being told by a doctor what to do.

Motivational Interviewing (M and the Stages of Change model are interventions and ways of looking at illness that have come to fore in the last 20 years, since Prozac was introduced, but nobody knows about them because there’s no marketing money attached to them. They involve, in a phrase, listening to patients instead of listening to Prozac. The Stages of Change model looks at change as cyclical rather than linear process (one make have to go through various cycles to ultimately change a behavior) and MI, first developed as a way to engage substance abusers, is a way of meeting “where they are at” and then helping them identify their own, internal reasons to get better. The MI approach is the exact opposite of the old way involving the confrontation of patients, but it is highly strategic and uses very specific techniques to find the things that a person can use on their own to change. Research shows that MI is effective in changing patients’ behavior towards a whole range of unhealthy behaviors, including depression and anxiety.
0 Comments
Comfortably Numb
Posted:Feb 27, 2008 4:25 am
Last Updated:Feb 27, 2008 2:18 pm
966 Views

Compelling. In Comfortably Numb,Charles Barber brings a street-smart perspective ... He worked for years with [the homeless mentally ill] in New York ... Comfortably Numb has a degree of sardonic anger powering its torrent of data and case studies.
– Salon

A fine, informed writer on cultural history as well as neuroscience, psychotherapy, and economics, Barber convincingly argues against the overprescription of psychiatric drugs in the United States and sums up the history of U.S. psychiatry from the asylum to the community to glitzy but still elementary neuroscience. A blockbuster.
– Library Journal starred review

A sharply critical look at the way antidepressants are marketed and prescribed in the United States . . . Barber articulately and persuasively counsels that it’s time to abandon the quick-fix, pop-a-pill approach.
– Kirkus Reviews

Persuasive. Barber, in a passionate and often angry book, speaks with authority . . . By any measure, this is an important book.
–Hartford Courant

"Comfortably Numb chronicles the extraordinary psychopharmaceuticalization of everyday life that has arisen in recent years and appears to be growing apace. Charles Barber marks out the inconvenient truths on our path to emotional climate change but also offers alternatives to readers who wish to avoid pharmageddon."
–David Healy, author of Let Them Eat Prozac

"In this passionate yet fair-minded book, Barber explores the disturbing medicalization and medication of unhappiness in America today. The author understands that while medication has an important role to play in the treatment of severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, Big Pharma has seduced Americans into believing they need drugs for the normal sorrows of life. Almost 70 percent of antidepressants worldwide are sold in the United States. Barber asks the critical question of whether Americans are crazier that the rest of the world or whether we have simply developed a crazy dependency on legal drugs."
–Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason
0 Comments
this makes no sense
Posted:Feb 26, 2008 2:21 pm
Last Updated:Feb 28, 2008 9:21 pm
1259 Views

Jesus never did it, nor his disciples or poor people, so why does the church insist you tithe? And it was Never money to begin with.
0 Comments
Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years?
Posted:Feb 25, 2008 5:47 pm
Last Updated:Mar 16, 2008 10:00 am
1076 Views

No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people.

By the beginning of the year A.D. 313, Christianity has won a mighty victory over paganism. A new emperor has come to the throne of the Roman Empire. He evidently recognized something of the mysterious power of this religion that continued to grow in spite of persecution. History says that this new emperor who was none other than Constantine had a wonderful realistic vision. He saw in the skies a fiery red cross and on that cross written in fiery letters these words--"By this thou shalt conquer." He interpreted it to mean that he should become a Christian. And that by giving up paganism and that by attaching the spiritual power of the Christian religion onto the temporal power of the Roman Empire the world could be easily conquered. Thus the Christian religion would in fact become a whole world religion, and the Roman Empire a whole world empire.

15. So under the leadership of Emperor Constantine there comes a truce, a courtship and a proposal of marriage. The Roman Empire through its emperor seeks a marriage with Christianity. Give us your spiritual power and we will give you of our temporal power.

16. To effectually bring about and consummate this unholy union, a council was called. In A. D. 313, a call was made for a coming together of the Christian churches or their representatives . Many but not all came. The alliance was consummated. A Hierarchy was formed. In the organization of the Hierarchy, Christ was dethroned as head of the churches and Emperor Constantine enthroned (only temporarily, however) as head of the church.

17. The Hierarchy was the definite beginning of a development which finally resulted into what is now known as the Catholic, or "universal" church. It might be said that its indefinite beginnings were near the close of the second and beginning of the third century, when the new ideas concerning bishops and preacher-church government began to take shape.

18. Let it be definitely remembered that when Constantine made his call for the council, there were very many of the Christians (Baptists) and of the churches, which declined to respond. They wanted no marriage with the state, and no centralized religious government, and no higher ecclesiastical government of any kind, than the individual church. These Christians (Baptists) nor the churches ever at that time or later, entered the hierarchy of the Catholic denomination.

19. When this hierarchy was created, Constantine, who was made its head, was not himself at that time a Christian. He had agreed to become one. But as the erring or irregular churches which had gone with him into this organization had come to adopt the error of Baptismal regeneration, a serious question arose in the mind of Constantine, "If I am saved from my sins by baptism, what is to become of my sins which I may commit after I am baptized?" He raised a question which has puzzled the world in all succeeding generations. Can baptism wash away yet uncommitted sins? Or, are the sins committed prior to baptism washed away by one method (that is, baptism), and the sins committed subsequent to baptism washed away by another method?

20. Not being able to settle satisfactorily the many questions thus arising, Constantine finally decided to unite with the Christians, but to postpone his baptism until just preceding his death, so that all his sins might thus be washed away at one time. This course he followed, and hence was not baptized until just preceding his death.

21. Constantine's action in repudiating for the whole Roman Empire, the pagan religion, and accepting Christianity incurred the hot displeasures of the Roman Senate. They repudiated, or, at least opposed his course. And their opposition finally resulted in the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium, an old city rebuilt and then renamed Constantinople for Constantine. As a result there came to be two capital cities of the Roman Empire--Rome and Constantinople. The two rival cities several centuries later became the ruling centers of the divided Catholic church--Roman and Greek.

22. Up to the organization of the Hierarchy and the uniting of church and state, all the persecution of Christianity has been done either by Judaism or Paganism. Now comes a serious change. Christians (in name) begin to persecute Christians. Constantine, desiring to have all Christians join with him in his new idea of a state religion, and many conscientiously opposing this serious departure from New Testament teachings, he begins using the power of government to compel. Thus begin the days and years and even centuries of a hard and bitter persecution against all those Christians who were loyal to the original Christ and Apostolic teachings.

23 Remember that we are now noting the events occurring between the years A.D. 300 and 500. The Hierarchy organized under the leadership of Constantine, rapidly developed into what is now known as the Catholic church. This newly developing church joined to a temporal government, no longer simply an executive to carry out the completed laws of the New Testament, began to be legislative, amending or annulling old laws or enacting new ones utterly unknown to the New Testament.

24. One of the first of its legislative enactments, and one of the most subversive in its results, was the establishing by law of "infant baptism." By this new law, "Infant Baptism" becomes compulsory. This was done A.D. 416. Infants had been infrequently baptized for probably a century preceding this. Insofar as this newly enacted law became effective, two vital New Testament laws were abrogated--"Believers Baptism" and "Voluntary personal obedience in Baptism."

25. As an inevitable consequence of this new doctrine and law, these erring churches were soon filled with unconverted members. In fact, it was not very many years until probably a majority of the membership was composed of unconverted material. So the great spiritual affairs of God's great spiritual kingdom were in the hands of an unregenerate temporal power. What may now be expected?

26. Loyal Christians and churches, of course, rejected this new law. "Believers baptism," of course, "New Testament baptism," was the only law for them. They not only refused to baptize their own , but believing in the baptism of believers only, they refused to accept the baptizing done by and within the churches of this unscriptural organization. If any of the members from the churches of this new organization attempted to join any of the churches which had refused to join in with the new organization, a Christian experience and a rebaptism was demanded.

27. The course followed by the loyal churches soon, of course, incurred the hot displeasure of the state religionists, many, if not most of whom, were not genuine Christians. The name "Christian," however, was from now on denied those loyal churches who refused to accept these new errors. They were robbed of that, and called by many other names, sometimes by one and sometimes by another, "Montanist," Tertullianists," "Novationists," "Paterines," etc., and some at least because of their practice of rebaptizing those who were baptized in infancy, were referred to an "Ana -Baptists."

28. A.D. 426, just ten years after the legal establishment of infant baptism, the awful period known as the "Dark Ages" had its beginning. What a period! How awfully black and bloody! From now on for more than a decade of centuries, the trail of loyal Christianity is largely washed away in its own blood. Note on the chart some of the many different names borne by the persecuted. Sometimes these names are given because of some specially heroic leader and sometimes from other causes, and frequently names for the same people vary in different countries and even in different centuries.

29. It was early in the period of the "dark ages" when real Popery had its definite beginnings. This was by Leo II, A.D. 440 to 461. This, however, was not the first time the title was ever used. This title, similar to the Catholic church itself, was largely a development. The name appears, as first applied to the Bishop of Rome 296-304. It was formally adopted by Siricius, Bishop of Rome 384-398. Then officially adopted by Leo II, 440-461. Then claimed to be universal, 707. Then some centuries later declared by Gregory VII to be the exclusive right of the papacy.

30. Now to sum up the most significant events of this first five-century period:

(1) The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher-church government.
(2) The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.

(3) The change from "believers' baptism" to "infant baptism."

(4) The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.

(5) Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.

(6) Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.

(7) Christians begin to persecute Christians.

( The "Dark Ages" begin 426.

(9) The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.

(10) All semblance of "Religious liberty" dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

SECOND LECTURE-600-1300
1. We closed the first Lecture with the close of the fifth century. And yet a number of things had their beginnings back in those early centuries, which were not even mentioned in the first Lecture. We had just entered the awful period known in the world's history as "The Dark Ages." Dark and bloody and awful in the extreme they were. The persecutions by the established Roman Catholic Church are hard, cruel and perpetual. The war of intended extermination follows persistently and relentlessly into many lands, the fleeing Christians. A "Trail of Blood" is very nearly all that is left anywhere. Especially throughout England, Wales, Africa, Armenia, and Bulgaria. And anywhere else Christians could be found who were trying earnestly to remain strictly loyal to New Testament teaching.

2. We now call attention to these Councils called "Ecumenical," or Empire wide. It is well to remember that all these Councils were professedly based upon, or patterned after the Council held by the Apostles and others at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:1), but probably nothing bearing the same name could have been more unlike. We here and now call attention to only eight, and these were all called by different Emperors, none of them by the Popes. And all these held among the Eastern or Greek churches. Attended, however, somewhat by representatives from the Western Branch or Roman Churches.

3. The first of these Councils was held at Nice or Nicea, in A.D. 325. It was called by Constantine the Great, and was attended by 318 bishops.

The second met at Constantinople, A.D. 381, and was called by Theodosius the Great. There were present 150 bishops. (In the early centuries, bishops simply meant pastors of the individual churches.)

The third was called by Theodosius II, and by Valentian III. This had 250 bishops present. It met at Ephesus, A.D. 431.

The fourth met at Calcedon, A.D. 451, and was called by Emperor Marian; 500 or 600 bishops or Metropolitans (Metropolitans were City pastors or First Church pastors) were present. During this Council the doctrine of what is now known as Mariolatry was promulgated. This means the worship of Mary, the mother of Christ. This new doctrine at first created quite a stir, many seriously objecting. But it finally won out as a permanent doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The fifth of these eight councils was held at Constantinople (which was the second to be held there). This was called by Justinian, A.D. 553, and was attended by 165 bishops. This, seemingly, was called mainly to condemn certain writings.

In the year A.D. 680 the Sixth Council was called. This was also held at Constantinople and was called by Constantine Pegonator, to condemn heresy. During this meeting Pope Honorius by name was deposed and excommunicated. However, at this time infallibility had not yet been declared.

The Seventh Council was called to meet at Nicea A.D. 787. This was the second held at this place. The Empress Irene called this one. Here in this meeting seems to have been the definite starting place, of both "Image Worship" and "Saints Worship." You can thus see that these people were getting more markedly paganized than Christianized.

The last of what were called the "Eastern Councils," those, called by the Emperors, was held in Constantinople, in A.D. 869. This was called by Basilius Maredo. The Catholic Church had gotten into serious trouble. There had arisen a controversy of a very serious nature between the heads of the two branches of Catholicism--the Eastern and Western, Greek and Roman--Pontius the Greek at Constantinople and Nicholas the 1st at Rome. So serious was their trouble, that they had gone so far as to excommunicate each other. So for a short time Catholicism was entirely without a head. The council was called mainly to settle, if possible, this difficulty. This break in the ranks of Catholicism has never, even to this day, been satisfactorily settled. Since that far away day, all attempts at healing that breach have failed. The Lateran-power since then has been in the ascendancy. Not the Emperors, but the Roman Pontiffs calling all Councils. The later Councils will be referred to later in these lectures.

4. There is one new doctrine to which we have failed to call attention. There are doubtless others but one especially--and that "Infant Communion." Infants were not only baptized, but received into the church, and being church members, they were supposed to be entitled to the Lord's Supper. How to administer it to them was a problem, but it was solved by soaking the bread in the wine. Thus it was practiced for years. And after awhile another new doctrine was added to this--it was taught that this was another means of Salvation. As still another new doctrine was later added to these, we will again refer to this a little later in the lectures.

5. During the 5th Century, at the fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, 451, another entirely new doctrine was added to the rapidly growing list--the doctrine called "Mariolatry," or the worship of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. A new mediator seems to have been felt to be needed. The distance from God to man was too great for just one mediator, even though that was Christ, God's , the real God-Man. Mary was thought to be needed as another mediator, and prayers were to be made to Mary. She was to make them to Christ.

6. Two other new doctrines were added to the Catholic faith in the 8th Century. These were promulgated at the Second Council held at Nicea (Nice), the Second Council held there (787). The first of these was called "Image Worship, a direct violation of one of the commands of God.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," (Ex. 20:3, 4, 5). Another addition from Paganism. Then followed the "worship of Saints." This doctrine has no encouragement in the Bible. Only one instance of Saint worship is given in the Bible and that is given to show its utter folly--the dead rich man praying to Abraham, (Luke 16:24-3l). These are some, not all of the many revolutionary changes from New Testament teachings, that came about during this period of Church history.

7. During the period that we are now passing through the persecuted were called by many and varied names. Among them were Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. Sometimes one group of these was the most prominent and sometimes another. But some of them were almost always prominent because of the persistency and terribleness of their persecution.

8. Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings. In the main they were. And some of them, considering their surroundings, were marvelously so. Remember that many of them at that far away, time, had only parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as to that. The book was not printed. It was written in manuscript on parchment or skins or something of that kind, and was necessarily large and bulky. Few, if any, families or even simple churches had complete copies of the whole Bible. Before the formal close of the Canon (end of fourth century) there were probably very few simple manuscripts of the entire New Testament. Of the one thousand known manuscripts only about 30 copies included all the books.

9. Furthermore, during all the period of the "Dark Ages," and the period of the persecution, strenuous efforts were made to destroy even what Scripture manuscripts the persecuted did possess. Hence in many instances these people had only small parts of the Bible.

10. It is well to note also that in order to prevent the spread of any view of any sort, contrary to those of the Catholics very extreme plans and measures were adopted. First, all writings of any sort, other than those of the Catholics, were gathered and burned. Especially was this true of books. For several centuries these plans and measures were strictly and persistently followed. That is, according to history, the main reason why it is so difficult to secure accurate history. About all persistent writers and preachers also died martyr deaths. This was a desperately bloody period. All of the groups of persistent heretics (So-called) by whatever name distinguished, and wherever they had lived, were cruelly persecuted. The Donatists and Paulicians, were prominent among the earlier groups. The Catholics, strange as it may seem, accused all who refused to depart from the faith with them, believe with them--accused them of being heretics, and then condemned them as being heretics. Those called Catholics became more thoroughly paganized and Judaized than they were Christianized, and were swayed far more by civil power, than they were by religious power. They made far more new laws, than they observed old ones.

11. The following are a few of the many new variations that came about in New Testament teachings during these centuries. They are probably not always given in the order of their promulgation. In fact it would sometimes be next to impossible to get the exact date of the origin of some of these changes. They have been somewhat like the whole Catholic system. They are growths of development. In the earlier years especially, their doctrines or teachings were subject to constant change--by addition or subtraction, or substitution or abrogation. The Catholic Church was now no longer, even if it had ever been, a real New Testament Church. It no longer was a purely executive body, to carry out the already made laws of God, but had become actively legislative, making new ones, changing or abrogating old ones at will.

12. One of their new doctrines or declarations about this time was "There is no salvation outside of the Church"--the Catholic Church, of course, as they declared there was no other--be a Catholic or be lost. There was no other alternative.

13. The doctrine of Indulgences and the Sale of Indulgences was another absolutely new and serious departure from New Testament teachings. But in order to make that new teaching really effective, still another new teaching was imperatively necessary: A very large Credit Account must somehow be established--a credit account in heaven, but accessible to earth. So the merit of "good works" as a means of Salvation must be taught, and as a means of filling up, putting something in the credit account, from which something could be drawn. The first large sum to go into the account in heaven was of course the work of the Lord Jesus. As He did no evil, none of His good works were needed for Himself, so all His good works could and would of course, go into the credit account. And then in addition to that, all the surplus good works (in addition to what each might need for himself) by the Apostles, and by all good people living thereafter, would be added to that credit account, making it enormously large. And then all this immense sum placed to the credit of the church--the only church(?)! and permission given to the church to use as needed for some poor sinning mortal, and charging for that credit as much as might be thought wise, for each one needed the heavenly credit. Hence came the Sale of Indulgences. Persons could buy for themselves or their friends, or even dead friends. The prices varied in proportion to the offense committed--or to be committed. This was sometimes carried to a desperate extreme, as admitted by Catholics themselves. Some histories or Encyclopedias give a list of prices charged on different sins for which Indulgences were sold.

14. Yet another new doctrine was necessary, yea imperative, to make thoroughly effective the last two. That new doctrine is called Purgatory, a place of intermediate state between heaven and hell, at which all must stop to be cleansed from all sins less than damning sins. Even the "Saints" must go through purgatory and must remain there until cleansed by fire--unless they can get help through that credit account, and that they can get only through the prayers or the paying for Indulgences, by those living. Hence the Sale of Indulgences. One departure from New Testament teachings lead inevitably to others.

15. It may be well just here to take time to show the differences between the Roman and Greek Catholics:

(1) In the Nationalities: The Greeks mainly are Slavs, embracing Greece, Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc., speaking Greek. The Romans are mainly Latins, embracing Italy, France, Spain, South and Central America, Mexico etc.
(2) The Greek Catholics reject sprinkling or pouring for baptism. The Romans use sprinkling entirely, claiming the right to change from the original Bible plan of immersion.

(3) The Greek Catholics continue the practice of Infant Communion. The Romans have abandoned it though once taught it as another means of Salvation.

(4) The Greeks in administering the Lord's Supper give the wine as well as the bread to the laity. The Romans give the bread only to the laity--the priests drink the wine.

(5) The Greeks have their priests to marry. The Roman priests are forbidden to marry.

(6) The Greeks reject the doctrine of Papal "Infallibility," the Romans accept and insist upon that doctrine. The above are at least the main points on which they differ--otherwise the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, it seems, would stand together.

16. In our lectures we have just about gotten through with the ninth century. We begin now with the tenth. Please note the chart. Just here where the separation has taken place between the Roman and Greek Catholics. You will soon see as the centuries advance, other new laws and doctrines--and other desperately bitter persecution. (Schaff, Herzogg, En., Vol. 11, page 901.)
"THE TRAIL OF BLOOD"

17. I again call your attention to those upon whom the hard hand of persecution fell. If fifty million died of persecution during the 1,200 years of what are called the "Dark Ages," as history seems positively to teach--then they died faster than an average of four million every one hundred years. That seems almost beyond the limit of, human conception. As before mentioned, this iron hand, dripping with martyr blood, fell upon Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Petro Brussians, Albigenses, Waldenses and Ana-Baptists--of course much harder upon some than others. But this horrid part of our story we will pass over hurriedly.

18. There came now another rather long period of Ecumenical Councils, of course not continuously or consecutively. There were all through the years many councils that were not Ecumenical, not "Empire Wide." These Councils were largely legislative bodies for the enactment or amendment of some civil or religious (?) laws, all of which, both the legislation and the laws, were directly contrary to the New Testament. Remember these were the acts of an established church--a church married to a Pagan government. And this church has become far more nearly paganized than the government has become Christianized.

19. When any people discard the New Testament as embracing all necessary laws for a Christian life, whether for the individual Christian or the whole church, that people has launched upon a limitless ocean. Any erroneous law, (and any law added to the Bible is erroneous) will inevitably and soon demand another, and others will demand yet others, without ever an end. That is why Christ gave His churches and to preachers no legislative powers. And again, and more particularly, that is why the New Testament closes with these significant words,

"For I certify unto every man that heareth the words of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in the book." Rev. 22:18, 19.

NOTE: We insert here this parenthetical clause, as a warning. Let Baptist Churches beware of even disciplinary and other varieties of resolutions, which they sometimes pass in their conferences, which resolutions might be construed as laws or rules of Church government, The New Testament has all necessary laws and rules.

20. The extreme limit of this little book precludes the possibility of saying much concerning these councils or law-making assemblies, but it is necessary to say some things.

21. The first of these Lateran or Western Councils, those called by the popes, was called by Calixtus II, A.D. 1123. There were present about 300 bishops. At this meeting it was decreed that Roman priests were never to marry. This was called the Celibacy of the priests. We of course do not attempt to give all things done at these meetings.

22. Years later, 1139 A.D., Pope Innocent II, called another of these Councils especially to condemn two groups of very devout Christians, known as Petro-Brussians and Arnoldists.

23. Alexander III called yet another, A.D. 1179, just forty years after the last. In that was condemned what they called the "Errors and Impieties" of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

24. Just 36 years after this last one, another was called by Pope Innocent III. This was held A.D. 1215, and seems to have been the most largely attended of possibly any of these great councils. According to the historical account of this meeting, "there were present 412 bishops, 800 Abbots and priors, Ambassadors from the Byzantine court, and a great number of Princes and Nobles." From the very make-up of this assembly you may know that spiritual matters were at least not alone to be considered.

At that time was promulgated the new doctrine of "Transubstantiation," the intended turning of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper into the actual and real body and blood of Christ, after a prayer by the priest. This doctrine among others, had much to do with stirring up the leaders of the Reformation a few centuries later. This doctrine of course taught that all those who participated in the supper actually ate of the body and drank of the blood of Christ. Auricular confession--confessing one's sins into the ear of a priest--was another new doctrine seemingly having its beginning at this meeting. But probably the most cruel and bloody thing ever brought upon any people in all the world's history was what is known as the "Inquisition," and other similar courts, designed for trying what was called "heresy." The whole world is seemingly filled with books written in condemnation of that extreme cruelty, and yet it was originated and perpetuated by a people claiming to be led and directed by the Lord. For real barbarity there seems to be nothing, absolutely nothing in all history that will surpass it. I would not even attempt to describe it. I will simply refer my readers to some of the many books written on the "Inquisition" and let them read and study for themselves. And yet another thing was done at this same meeting, as if enough had not been done. It was expressly decreed to extirpate all "heresy." What a black page--yea--many black pages were written into the world's history by these terrible decrees.

25. In A.D. 1229, just 14 years after the last awful meeting, still another meeting was held. (This seems not to have been ecumenical.) It was called the council at Toulouse. Probably one of the most vital matters in all Catholic history was declared at this meeting. At this it was decreed, the Bible, God's book, should be denied to all laymen, all members of Catholic churches other than priests or higher officials. How strange a law in the face of the plain teaching of the Word, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

26. Yet another Council was called to meet at Lyons. This was called by Pope Innocent IV, in 1245 A.D. This seems to have been mainly for the purpose of excommunicating and deposing Emperor Frederick I of Germany. The Church, the adulterous bride at the marriage with the State in 313 in the days of CONSTANTINE THE Great, has now become the head of the house, and is now dictating politics of State government, and kings and queens are made or unmade at her pleasure.

27. In 1274 A.D. another Council was called to bring about the reuniting of the Roman and Greek branches of the great Catholic Church. This great assembly utterly failed to accomplish its purpose.

THIRD LECTURE--1400-1600

1. These three centuries, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth, are among the most eventful in all the world's history, and especially is this true in Christian history. There was almost a continual revolution inside the Catholic Church--both Roman and Greek--seeking a Reformation. This awakening of long dormant Conscience and the desire for a genuine reformation really began in the thirteenth century or possibly even a little earlier than that. History certainly seems to indicate it.

2. Let's go back just a little. The Catholic Church by its many departures from New Testament teachings, its many strange and cruel laws, and its desperately low state of morals, and its hands and clothes reeking with the blood of millions of martyrs, has become obnoxious and plainly repulsive to many of its adherents, who are far better than their own system and laws and doctrines and practices. Several of its bravest and best and most spiritual priests and other leaders, one by one, sought most earnestly to reform many of its most objectionable laws and doctrines and get back, at least nearer, to the plain teachings of the New Testament. We give some striking examples. Note, not only how far apart and where the reformatory fires began, but note also the leaders in the reformation. The leaders were, or had been, all Catholic priests or officials of some kind. There was, even yet, a little of good in the much evil. However, at this time there was probably not one solitary unmarred doctrine of the New Testament retained in its original purity--but now note some of the reformers and where they labored.

3. It is well to note, however, that for many centuries prior to this great reformation period, there were a number of noted characters, who rebelled against the awful extremes of the Catholic--and earnestly sought to remain loyal to the Bible--but their bloody trail was about all that was left of them. We come now to study for awhile this most noted period--the "Reformation."

4. From 1320 to 1384 there lived a man in England who attracted world-wide attention. His name was John Wycliff. He was the first of the brave fellows who had the courage to attempt a real reformation inside the Catholic Church. He is many times referred to in history as "The Morning Star of the Reformation." He lived an earnest and effective life. It would really require several volumes to contain anything like an adequate history of John Wycliff. He was hated, fearfully hated, by the leaders of the Catholic hierarchy. His life was persistently sought. He finally died of paralysis. But years later, so great was Catholic hatred, his bones were dug and burned, and his ashes scattered upon the waters.

5. Following tolerably close on the heels of Wycliff came John Huss, 1373-1415, a distinguished from far away Bohemia. His soul had felt and responded to the brilliant light of England's "Morning Star." His was a brave and eventful life, but painfully and sadly short. Instead of awakening a responsive chord among his Catholic people in favor of a real reformation, he aroused a fear and hatred and opposition which resulted in his being burned at the stake--a martyr among his own people. And yet he was seeking their own good. He loved his Lord and he loved his people. However, he was only one of many millions who had thus to die.

6. Next to John Huss of Bohemia, came a wonderful of Italy, the marvelously eloquent Savonarola, 1452-1498. Huss was burned in 1415, Savonarola was born 37 years later. He, like Huss, though a devout Catholic, found the leaders of his people--the people of Italy--like those of Bohemia, against all reformation. But he, by his mighty eloquence, succeeded in awakening some conscience and securing a considerable following. But a real reformation in the Hierarchy meant absolute ruin to the higher-ups in that organization. So Savonarola, as well as Huss, must die. HE TOO WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE. Of all the eloquent men of that great period, Savonarola possibly stood head and shoulders above all others. But he was contending against a mighty organization and their existence demanded that they fight the reformation, so Savonarola must die.

7. Of course, in giving the names of the reformers of this period, many names are necessarily to be left out. Only those most frequently referred to in history are mentioned here. Following Italy's golden tongued orator came a man from Switzerland. Zwingle was born before Savonarola died. He lived from 1484 to 1531. The spirit of reformation was beginning now to fill the whole land. Its fires are now breaking out faster and spreading more rapidly and becoming most difficult to control. This one kindled by Zwingle was not yet more than partially smothered before another, more serious than all the rest, had broken out in Germany. Zwingle died in battle.

8. Martin Luther, probably the most noted of all the fifteenth and sixteenth century reformers, lived 1483 to 1546, and as can be seen by the dates, was very nearly an exact contemporary of Zwingle. He was born one year earlier and lived fifteen years later. Far more, probably, than history definitely states, his great predecessors have in great measure made easier his hard way before him. Furthermore, he learned from their hard experience, and then later, and most thoroughly from his own, that a genuine reformation inside the Catholic Church would be an utter impossibility. Too many reform measures would be needed. One would demand another and others demand yet others, and so on and on.

9. So Martin Luther, after many hard fought battles with the leaders of Catholicism, and aided by Melancthon and other prominent Germans, became the founder in 1530, or, about then, of an entirely new Christian organization, now known as the Lutheran Church, which very soon became the Church of Germany. This was the first of the new organizations to come directly out of Rome and renounce all allegiance to the Catholic Mother Church (as she is called) and to continue to live thereafter.

10. Skipping now for a little while, the Church of England, which comes next to the Lutheran in its beginnings, we will follow for a little while the Reformation on the Continent. From 1509 to 1564, there lived another of the greatest of the reformers. This was John Calvin, a Frenchman, but seeming at the time to be living in Switzerland. He was really a mighty man. He was a contemporary of Martin Luther for 30 years, and was 22 years old when Zwingle died. Calvin is the accredited founder of the Presbyterian church. Some of the historians, however, give that credit to Zwingle, but the strongest evidence seems to favor Calvin. Unquestionably the work of Zwingle, as well as that of Luther, made much easier the work of Calvin. So in 1541, just eleven years (that seems to be the year), after the founding by Luther of the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church came into existence. It too, as in the case of the Lutherans, was led by a reformed Catholic priest or at least official. These six--Wycliff, Huss, Savonarola, Zwingle, Luther and Calvin, great leaders in their great battles for reformation, struck Catholicism a staggering blow.

11. In 1560, nineteen years after Calvin's first organization in Geneva, Switzerland, John Knox, a disciple of Calvin, established the first Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and just thirty-two years later, 1592, the Presbyterian became the State Church of Scotland.

12. During all these hard struggles for Reformation, continuous and valuable aid was given to the reformers, by many Ana-Baptists, or whatever other name they bore. Hoping for some relief from their own bitter lot, they came out of their hiding places and fought bravely with the reformers, but they were doomed to fearful disappointment. They were from now on to have two additional persecuting enemies. Both the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches brought out of their Catholic Mother many of her evils, among them her idea of a State Church. They both soon became Established Churches. Both were soon in the persecuting business, falling little, if any, short of their Catholic Mother.

"THE TRAIL OF BLOOD"

Sad and awful was the fate of these long-suffering Ana-Baptists. The world now offered no sure place for hiding. Four hard persecutors were now hot on their trail. Surely theirs was a "Trail of Blood."

13. During the same period, really earlier by several years than the Presbyterians, arose yet another new denomination, not on the continent, but in England. However, this came about not so much by way of reformation (though that evidently made it easier) as by way of a real split or division in the Catholic ranks. More like the division in 869, when Eastern Catholics separated from the Western, and became from that time on, known in history as the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches. This new division came about somewhat in this wise:

England's king, Henry VIII, had married Catherine of Spain, but unfortunately, after some time his somewhat troublesome heart had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn. So he wanted to divorce Catherine and marry Annie. Getting a divorce back then was no easy matter. Only the Pope could grant it, and he in this case, for special reasons, declined to grant it. Henry was in great distress. Being king, he felt he ought to be entitled to follow his own will in the matter. His Prime Minister (at that time Thomas Cromwell) rather made sport of the King. Why do you submit to papal authority on such matters? Henry followed his suggestion, threw off papal authority and made himself head of the Church of England. Thus began the new Church of England. This was consummated in 1534 or 1535. At that time there was no change in doctrine, simply a renunciation of the authority of the Pope. Henry at heart really never became a Protestant. He died in the Catholic faith.

14. But this split did ultimately result in some very considerable change, or reformation, While a reformation within the Catholic Church and under papal authority, as in the case of Luther and others, was impossible, it became possible after the division. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and others led in some marked changes. However, they and many others paid a bloody price for the changes when a few years later, Mary, "Bloody Mary," a of the divorced Catherine, came to the English throne, and carried the new Church back under the papal power. This fearful and terrific reaction ended with the strenuous and bloody five-year reign of Mary. While the heads were going under the bloody axe of Mary, hers went with them. The people had gotten, however, a partial taste of freedom so when Elizabeth, the of Anne Boleyn (for whom Catherine was divorced), became Queen, the Church of England again overthrew papal power and was again re-established.

15. Thus, before the close of the Sixteenth Century, there were five established Churches--churches backed up by civil governments--the Roman and Greek Catholics counted as two; then the Church of England; then the Lutheran, or Church of Germany; then the Church of Scotland, now known as the Presbyterian. All of them were bitter in their hatred and persecution of the people called Ana-Baptists, Waldenses and all other non-established churches, churches which never in any way had been connected with the Catholics. Their great help in the struggle for reformation had been forgotten, or was now wholly ignored. Many more thousands, including both women and were constantly perishing every day in the yet unending persecutions. The great hope awakened and inspired by the reformation had proven to be a bloody delusion. Remnants now find an uncertain refuge in the friendly Alps and other hiding places over the world.

16. These three new organizations, separating from, or coming out of the Catholics, retained many of their most hurtful errors, some of which are as follows:

(1) Preacher-church government (differing in form).
(2) Church Establishment (Church and State combination).

(3) Infant BAPTISM

(4) Sprinkling or Pouring for Baptism.

(5) Baptismal Regeneration (some at least, and others, if many of their historians are to be accredited).

(6) Persecuting others (at least for centuries).

17. In the beginning all these established Churches persecuted one another as well as every one else, but at a council held at Augsburg in 1555, a treaty of peace, known as the "Peace of Augsburg" was signed between the "Catholics" on the one hand, and the "Lutherans" on the other, agreeing not to persecute each other. You let us alone, and we will let you alone. For Catholics to fight Lutherans meant war with Germany, and for Lutherans to fight or persecute Catholics meant war with all the countries where Catholicism predominated.
"THE TRAIL OF BLOOD"

18. But persecutions did not then cease. The hated Ana-Baptists (called Baptists today), in spite of all prior persecutions, and in spite of the awful fact that fifty million had already died martyr deaths, still existed in great numbers. It was during this period that along one single European highway, thirty miles distance, stakes were set up every few feet along this highway, the tops of the stakes sharpened, and on the top of each stake was placed a gory head of a martyred Ana-Baptist. Human imagination can hardly picture a scene so awful! And yet a thing perpetrated, according to reliable history, by a people calling themselves devout followers of the meek and lowly Jesus Christ.

19. Let it be remembered that the Catholics do not regard the Bible as the sole rule and guide of faith and life. The claim that it is indeed unerring, but that there are two other things just as much so, the "Writings of the Fathers" and the decrees of the Church (Catholic Church) or the declarations of the Infallible Pope.

Hence, there could never be a satisfactory debate between Catholic and Protestant or between Catholic and Baptist, as there could never possibly be a basis of final agreement. The Bible alone can never settle anything so far as the Catholics are concerned.

20. Take as an example the question of "Baptism" and the final authority for the act and for the mode. They claim that the Bible unquestionably teaches Baptism and that it teaches immersion as the only mode. But they claim at the same time that their unerring Church had the perfect right to change the mode from immersion to sprinkling but that no others have the right or authority, none but the infallible papal authority.

21. You will note of course, and possibly be surprised at it, that I am doing in these lectures very little quoting. I am earnestly trying to do a very hard thing, give to the people the main substance of two thousand years of religious history in six hours of time.

22. It is well just here to call attention to facts concerning the Bible during these awful centuries. Remember the Bible was not then in print and there was no paper upon which to have printed even if printing had been invented. Neither was there any paper upon which to write it. Parchment, dressed goat of sheep skins, or papyrus (some kind of wood pulp), this was the stuff used upon which to write. So a book as big as the Bible, all written by hand and with a stylus of some sort, not a pen like we use today, was an enormous thing, probably larger than one man could carry. There were never more than about thirty complete Bibles in all the world. Many parts or books of the Bible like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Acts, or some one of the Epistles, or Revelation or some one book of the Old Testament. One of the most outstanding miracles in the whole world's history--according to my way of thinking--is the nearness with which God's people have thought and believed together on the main and vital points of Christianity. Of course God is the only solution. It is now a most glorious fact that we can all and each, now have a full copy of the whole Bible and each in our own native tongue.

23. It is well also for us all to do some serious and special thinking on another vital fact concerning the Bible. It has already been briefly mentioned in the lecture preceding this, but is so very vital that it will probably be wise to refer to it again. It was the action taken by the Catholics at the Council of Toulouse, held in 1229 A. D., when they decided to withhold the Bible, the Word of God from the vast majority of all their own people, the "Laymen." I am simply stating here just what they stated in their great Council. But lately in private a Catholic said to me, "Our purpose in that is to prevent their private interpretation of it." Isn't it marvelous that God should write a book for the people and then should be unwilling for the people to read it. And yet according to that book the people are to stand or fall in the day of judgment on the teachings of that book. No wonder the declaration in the book--"Search the Scriptures (the book) for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me." Fearful the responsibility assumed by the Catholics!

FOURTH LECTURE--17th, 18th, 19th Centuries

1. This lecture begins with the beginning of the Seventeenth Century (A.D. 1601). We have passed very hurriedly over much important Christian history, but necessity his compelled this.

2. This three-century period begins with the rise of an entirely new denomination. It is right to state that some historians give the date of the beginning of the Congregational Church (at first called "Independents") as 1602. However, Schaff-Herzogg, in their Encyclopedia, place its beginning far back in the sixteenth century, making it coeval with the Lutheran and Presbyterian. In the great reformation wave many who went out of the Catholic Church were not satisfied with the extent of the reformation led by Luther and Calvin. They decided to repudiate also the preacher rule and government idea of the churches and return to the New Testament democratic idea as had been held through the fifteen preceding centuries by those who had refused to enter Constantine's hierarchy.

3. The determined contention of this new organization for this particular reform brought down upon its head bitter persecution from Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Church of England adherents--all the established churches. However, it retained many other of the Catholic made errors, such for instance as infant baptism, pouring or sprinkling for baptism, and later adopted and practiced to an extreme degree the church and state idea. And, after refugeeing to America, themselves, became very bitter persecutors.

4. The name "Independents" or as now called "Congregationalists," is derived from their mode of church government. Some of the distinguishing principles of the English Congregationalists as given in Schaff-Herzogg Encyclopedia are as follows:

(1) That Jesus Christ is the only head of the church and that the Word of God is its only statue book.
(2) That visible churches are distinct assemblies of Godly men gathered out of the world for purely religious purposes, and not to be confounded with the world.

(3) That these separate churches have full power to choose their own officers and to maintain discipline.

(4) That in respect to their internal management they are each independent of all other churches and equally independent of state control.

5. How markedly different these principles are from Catholicism, or even Lutheranism, or Presbyterianism or the Episcopacy of the Church of England. How markedly similar to the Baptists of today, and of all past ages, and to the original teachings of Christ and His apostles.
6. In 1611, the King James English Version of the Bible appeared. Never was the Bible extensively given to the people before. From the beginning of the general dissemination of the Word of God began the rapid decline of the Papal power, and the first beginnings for at least many centuries, of the idea of "religious liberty."

7. In 1648 came the "Peace of Westphalia." Among other things which resulted from that peace pact was the triple agreement between the great denominations--Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian, no longer to persecute one another. Persecutions among these denominations meant war with governments backing them. However, all other Christians, especially the Ana-Baptists, were to continue to receive from them the same former harsh treatment, persistent persecution.

8. During all the seventeenth century, persecutions for Waldenses, Ana-Baptists, and Baptists (in some places the "Ana" was now being left off) continued to be desperately severe; in England by the Church of England, as John Bunyan and many others could testify; in Germany by the Lutherans; in Scotland by the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian); in Italy, in France, and in every other place where the papacy was in power, by the Catholics. There is now no peace anywhere for those who are not in agreement with the state churches, or some one of them.

9. It is a significant fact well established in credible history that even as far back as the fourth century those refusing to go into the Hierarchy, and refusing to accept the baptism or those baptized in infancy, and refusing to accept the doctrine of "Baptismal Regeneration" and demanding rebaptism for all those who came to them from the Hierarchy, were called "Ana-Baptists." No matter what other names they then bore, they were always referred to as "Ana-Baptists." Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, the "Ana" was dropped, and the name shortened to simply "Baptist," and gradually all other names were dropped. Evidently, if Bunyan had lived in an earlier period his followers would have been called "Bunyanites" or "Ana-Baptists." Probably they would have been called by both names as were others preceding him.

10. The name "Baptist" is a "nickname," and was given to them by their enemies (unless the name can be rightfully attributed to them as having been given to them by the Savior Himself, when He referred to John as "The Baptist"). To this day, the name has never been officially adopted by any group of Baptists. The name, however, has become fixed and is willingly accepted and proudly borne. It snugly fits. It was the distinguishing name of the forerunner of Christ, the first to teach the doctrine to which the Baptists now hold.

11. I quote a very significant statement from the Schaff- Herzogg Encyclopedia, under "History of Baptists in Europe," Vol. 1, page 210, "The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland about 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingle and the Romanists. They are found in the following years, 1525-1530, with large churches fully organized, in Southern Germany, Tyrol and in middle Germany. In all these places persecutions made their lives bitter."

(Note--that all this is prior to the founding of the Protestant churches--Lutheran, Episcopal, or Presbyterian.)

We continue the quotation--

"Moravia promised a home of greater freedom, and thither many Baptists migrated, only to find their hopes deceived. After 1534 they were numerous in Northern Germany, Holland, Belgium, and the Walloon provinces. They increased even during Alva's rule, in the low countries, and developed a wonderful missionary zeal." (Note--"Missionary Zeal." And yet some folks say that the "Hardshells" are primitive Baptists.)

Where did these Baptists come from? They did not come out of the Catholics during the Reformation. They had large churches prior to the Reformation.

12. As a matter of considerable interest, note the religious changes in England as the centuries have gone by:

The Gospel was carried to England by the Apostles and it remained Apostolic in its religion until after the organization of the Hierarchy in the beginning of the fourth century, and really for more than another century after that. It then came under the power of the Hierarchy which was rapidly developing into the Catholic Church. It then remained Catholic--that was the state religion, until the split in 1534-1535, during the reign of Henry VIII. It was then called the Church of England. Eighteen years later, 1553-1558, during the reign of Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary") England was carried back to the Catholics, and a bloody five-years period was this. Then Elizabeth, a half-sister of Mary, the of Anna Boleyn, came to the throne, 1558. The Catholics were again overthrown, and again the Church of England came into power. And thus things remained for almost another century, when the Presbyterian Church came for a short while into the ascendancy, and seemed for a while as if it might become the State Church of England as well as that of Scotland. However, following the time of Oliver Cromwell, the Church of England came back to her own and has remained the established church of England ever since.

13. Note the gradual softening down of religious matters in England from the hard and bitter persecutions of the established church for more than a century.

(1) The first toleration act came in 1688, one hundred and fifty-four years after the beginning of this church. This act permitted the worship of all denominations in England except two--the Catholics and the Unitarians.
(2) The second toleration act came in 1778, eighty-nine years still later. This act included in the toleration the Catholics, but still excluded the Unitarians.

(3) The third toleration act came in 1813, thirty-five years later. This included the Unitarians.

(4) In 1828-1829 came what is known as the "Test Act" which gave the "dissenters" (the religionists not in accord with the "Church of England") access to public office and even to Parliament.

(5) In 1836-37 and 1844 came the "Registration" and "Marriage" acts. These two acts made legal baptisms and marriages performed by "dissenters."

(6) The "Reform Bill" came in 1854. This bill opened the doors of Oxford and Cambridge Universities to dissenting students. Up to this time no of a "dissenter" could enter one of these great institutions.

14. Thus has been the march of progress in England toward "Religious Liberty." But it is probably correct to state that real religious liberty can never come into any country where there is and is to remain an established church. At best, it can only be toleration, which is certainly a long way from real religious liberty. As long as one denomination among several in any country is supported by the government to the exclusion of all others this favoritism and support of one, precludes the possibility of absolute religious liberty and equality.
15. Very near the beginning of the eighteenth century there were born in England three boys who were destined to leave upon the world a deep and unfading impression. These boys were John and Charles Wesley, and George Whitfield.

John and Charles Wesley were born at Epworth (and here comes a suggestion for the name Epworth League), the former June 28, 1703, and the latter March 29, 1708. George Whitfield was born in Gloucester, December 27, 1714. The story of the lives of these boys cannot be told here, but they are well worth being told, and then retold. These three boys became the fathers and founders of Methodism. They were all three members of the Church of England, and all studying for the ministry; and yet at that time, not one of them converted (which at that time was not unusual among the English clergy. Remember, however, that in those days, the parent frequently, if not usually, decided on the profession or line of the life to be followed by the boy). But these boys were afterwards converted, and genuinely and wonderfully converted.

16. These men seemed to have no desire to be the founders of a new denomination. But they did seem to greatly desire and earnestly strive for a revival of pure religion and a genuine spiritual reformation in the Church of England. This they tried in both England and America. The doors of their own churches were soon closed against them. Their services were frequently held out in the open, or in some private house, or, as especially in the case of Whitfield, in the meeting houses of other denominations. Whitfield's great eloquence attracted markedly great attention everywhere he went.

17. The definite date of the founding of the Methodist Church is hard to be determined. Unquestionably Methodism is older than the Methodist Church. The three young men were called Methodists before they left college. Their first organizations were called "Societies." Their first annual conference in England was held in 1744. The Methodist Episcopal Church was officially and definitely organized in America, in Baltimore in 1784. Their growth has really been marvelous. But, when they came out of the Church of England, or the Episcopal Church, they brought with them a number of the errors of the mother and grandmother churches. For instance, as the Episcopacy, or preacher-church government. On this point they have had many internal wars and divisions, and seem destined to have yet others. Infant Baptism and sprinkling for baptism, etc., but there is one great thing which they have, which they did not bring out with them, a genuine case of spiritual religion.

18. September 12, 1788, there was born in Antrium, Ireland, a , who was destined in the years to come, to create quite a religious stir in some parts of the world, and to become the founder of a new religious denomination. That was Alexander Campbell. His father was a Presbyterian minister. The father, Thomas Campbell, came to America in 1807. Alexander, his , who was then in college, came later. Because of changed views, they left the Presbyterians and organized an independent body, which they called "The Christian Association," known as "The Brush Run Church." In 1811, they adopted immersion as baptism and succeeded in persuading a Baptist preacher to baptize them, but with the distinct understanding that they were not to unite with the Baptist Church. The father, mother, and Alexander were all baptized. In 1813 their independent church united with the Red Stone Baptist Association. Ten years later, because of controversy, they left that association and joined another. Controversies continued to arise, and they left that association. It is fair to say that they had never been Baptists, nor had they so far as any records I have seen, to show, ever claimed to be.

19. It could hardly be fair to Christian history, and especially to Baptist history, to say nothing in these lectures about John Bunyan. In some respects, one of the most celebrated men in English history and even in world history--John Bunyan, a Baptist preacher--John Bunyan, twelve years in Bedford jail--John Bunyan the author while confined in jail, of the most celebrated and most widely circulated book, next to the Bible, in the whole world. "Pilgrim's Progress"--John Bunyan, one of the most notable of all examples of the bitterness of Christian persecution.

And the story of Mary Bunyan, John Bunyan's blind , ought to be in every Sunday School library. For many years it was out of print. I think it is now in print again. I almost defy any man or woman, boy or girl, to read it and keep dry eyes.

20. Another thing about which at least a few words should be said in these lectures in concerning Wales and the Welch Baptists. One of the most thrilling stories in Christian history is the story of the Welch Baptists. The Baptists of the United States owe far most to the Welch Baptists than the most of us are conscious. Some whole Baptist churches, fully organized, have migrated in a body from Wales to the United States. (Orchard, p. 21-23; Ford, chapt. 2.)

21. The story of the beginning of Christian work in Wales is strikingly fascinating and from history it seems to be true. That history begins in the New Testament (Acts 28:30-31; II Tim. 4:21). The story of Claudia and Pudens--their visit to Rome--their conversion under Paul's preaching, and carrying the gospel back to Wales, their homeland, is thrillingly interesting. Paul did this preaching in Rome as early as A.D. 63. Soon after that Claudia, Pudens, and others, among them two preachers, carried the same gospel into England and especially into Wales. How mightily the Welch Baptists have helped the Baptists in America can hardly be estimated.

LECTURE FIVE--RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Through the Spanish and others of the Latin races, the Catholics as religionists, came to be the first representatives of the Christian religion in South and Central America. But in North America, except Mexico, they have never strongly predominated. In the territory of what is now the United States except in those sections which were once parts of Mexico they have never been strong enough, even during the Colonial period to have their religious views established by law.

2. Beginning with the Colonial period, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the first settlements were established in Virginia, and a little later in that territory now known as the New England States. Religious, or more properly speaking--irreligious persecutions, in England, and on the continent, were, at least, among the prime causes which led to the first settlement of the first United States Colonies. In some of the groups of immigrants which first came, not including the Jamestown group (1607) and those known as the "Pilgrims" (1620), were two groups, one, at least, called "Puritans"--these were "Congregationalists." Governor Endicott was in control of their colony. The other group were Presbyterians. Among these two groups, however, were a number of Christians with other views than theirs, also seeking relief from persecution.

"THE TRAIL OF BLOOD IN AMERICA"

3. These refugeeing Congregationalists and Presbyterians established different Colonies and immediately within their respective territories established by l
0 Comments
Did the Roman Catholic Church hide the bible?
Posted:Feb 25, 2008 5:28 pm
Last Updated:Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm
1224 Views

David W. Daniels


Question: I read with great interest that the Catholic Church supposedly 'hid' the bible from its members so that they would not know its contents and therefore not know that they have been lied to.

Could you please reconcile this with the fact that the first printed bible for general public use was printed and distributed by the Catholic Church long before Martin Luther 'protested' (about 60 years before).

From what I get before the invention of the printing press (By Gutenberg - a Catholic), to have a bible would have meant that someone had to have hand-written it on expensive paper. (The fact is paper was not as cheap as it is now). From an expert's estimate, the cost of a bible would have been today’s equivalent of US$8,000.00 and this would have put the price of the bible out of reach of the vast majority of the people. I actually doubt that many in this day would have been keen to spend that much money on a bible that might not last as long. Besides they would not have been able to produce that many bibles anyway. Also, the Catholic bible is the best selling bible, actually book, of all time.

Could you please disprove the above by giving me quotes and references that support your tract (The Death Cookie) in the above subject.

I am trying to work out my salvation in fear and trembling and I need the truth.

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church did hide the Bible from the common people. There were two ways in which this happened.

First, the Roman Catholic leaders by the Middle Ages usually did not know the Bible. Many people bought their position as priests. Many did not have a Bible at all; but more importantly, many local priests did not even know how to read.

Second, the Roman Catholic religion did not even use a genuine Bible. Their book was from the polluted Alexandrian stream. The real Bible was kept by many people the Roman Catholics persecuted and murdered.

Since the Roman Catholic religion did not want the true Bible in the hands of the people, they 1) used a false Bible, 2) persecuted people who did have a true Bible, and 3) did not let even the perverted Bible be published widely in the language of the people.

The Gutenberg Bible you refer to was a Roman Catholic Vulgate, not a preserved Bible. Although the movable-type printing press was invented by him, he did not do mass copies of even the perverted Bible. That did not occur until a couple of events happened.

First, the city in which Gutenberg worked was invaded in 1462, spreading the printing press invention to Rome, Paris, Krakow (Poland) and Westminster (England). Second, the Reformers got hold of preserved Bibles and used these presses to print thousands of Bibles and Christian literature for the people.

You are right that Bibles before this had to be copied by hand. But the incredible historical fact is this: That is exactly what those who had the preserved Bibles did. It was these many, handwritten copies of God’s preserved words that so blessed, informed and converted the earliest Protestants of the Reformation. Just like you can find it in the King James Bible today.
0 Comments
Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?
Posted:Feb 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Last Updated:May 10, 2024 3:49 am
937 Views

by David W. Daniels

Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?

Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

Here is a short history of the Bible.

1. Old Testament

The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.

2. The Inter-Testamental Period

The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.

But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).

3. The Time of Christ

It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the and of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).

But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.

4. The Church Age

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians.

Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to watered down (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.

Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ...

Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ... simply doesn't hold water.
0 Comments
What does the Bible say about talking to the dead?
Posted:Feb 24, 2008 5:34 pm
Last Updated:Feb 25, 2008 1:09 pm
2070 Views

BIBLE Q & A
Q: What does the Bible say about
talking to the dead?


Q:
Is it wrong to contact or communicate with the dead? Someone I know claims to have been visited by a deceased relative. Is this any different than praying to the dead, as in Roman Catholicism?

A:

The Old Testament term for communicating with the dead is "necromancy." (Deuteronomy 18:11, also read verse 10) It is forbidden by God: "There shall not be found among you... For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord" (an "abomination," KJV).

Also see: 1 Samuel 28:3-20; 2 Chronicles 10:13, 14; Isaiah 8:19-22. The punishment for contacting the dead is very severe, if not repented of.

This must also include what Roman Catholicism claims is praying to the "saints" -- the deceased who have been beatified, canonized, or placed in a position of spiritual superiority by the hierarchy.

(Scripture refers to all believers as "saints.")

The real force at work in such "apparitions" (appearances of the deceased) is deception: demonic activity, evil spirits. Satan disguises himself as "an angel of light," it says in 2 Corinthians 11:14. (He doesn't approach us saying, "Boo!" or we'd run & hide.)

When prophecies or visions fail to come to pass, we know they're not of God (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). But even if a vision or prophecy does come to pass, scripture says, we are still instructed to examine or discern the source: if it doesn't glorify Jesus -- if it glorifies any other person, living or dead -- it's not of God.

When someone claims to have received a "vision" of the dead, it's really a deception of the enemy -- demon forces at work.

Luke chapter 16 contains excellent instruction on the state of the dead, referring to an impassable separation between the after-life and this world. Those in the next world, saved or otherwise, simply do not return to deliver messages to the living:

"[Lazarus] died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom," and the rich man died and suffered torment in Hades. A "great gulf" separated the two and was "fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." (Luke 16:19-31)

Another example is the instance in which, at the death of his , David testified: "I shall go to him, but he shall not return unto me." (2 Samuel 12:15-23)

Not all miracles are of God. Satan performs lying signs and wonders (Exodus 7:9-12; 8, 17-19; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:13-14, 16:14; 19:20) The magicians in the times of Moses and Daniel could perform some magic (Exodus 7:9-12; 8; Daniel 1:20) ... but their power is limited (Exodus 8:17-19; Daniel 2:2, 10, 27; 4; 5-8, 15).

Many Roman Catholics and others, lacking discernment* and knowledge of the Scriptures ("My people perish for lack of knowledge") -- and trusting the hierarchy of man -- fail to "test the spirits and see whether they be of God" (1 John 4:1). They assume the priests do that for them! Some of the primary points relative to this issue include:

If a sign or wonder predicted comes to pass, but the person is enticed to follow after another god, we are to reject it. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5) Also, if the message delivered is contrary to Scripture, it's not from God (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:16). Some religious messages don't glorify Jesus at all; rather, the "vision" is glorified and, repeated again and again, perpetuated by tradition.

The Roman Catholic practice of praying to and for the dead can be traced in part to the Old Testament apocryphal books (2 Maccabees 12:46 "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead.") These books, rejected from the canon ("rule," or "standard") of Scripture, contain historical and geographical errors, and many teachings inconsistent with the rest of scripture: salvation by almsgiving; suicide; magic; angelic intercession; etc. Definitely nothing sturdy upon which to base one's eternal destiny.

* discernment is learned by experience (Hebrews 5:14), through knowledge of the Bible (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:15, 6; Ezekiel 44;23)

Diane Dew
0 Comments
Papal Supremacy
Posted:Feb 24, 2008 2:17 pm
Last Updated:Feb 24, 2008 5:27 pm
965 Views

Paganistic Roman Catholicism Teaches

The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" Pg. 246, #937

how ridiculous is that? I doubt any popes have been even saved

Holy Scripture Teaches

Jesus (not the Pope) is the head of the church:
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23

"And ye are complete in him (Jesus), which is the head of all principality and power:" Colossians 2:10

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church..." Colossians 1:18
0 Comments
The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility
Posted:Feb 24, 2008 2:10 pm
Last Updated:May 10, 2024 3:49 am
817 Views

PAGANISTIC ROMAN CATHOLICISM TEACHES

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith." Catechism, p. 235, #889

"The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." Catechism, pg. 235, #891

"The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when ... he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such." Code of Canon Law, Can. 747

The Holy Scriptures Teach

Only Jesus, the Living Word, who is God -- and the God-breathed, written Word of God, the Scriptures -- are perfect and infallible.
Galatians 2 Paul rebuked Peter to his face.
0 Comments

To link to this blog (Tropical_Man) use [blog Tropical_Man] in your messages.