STUDY 1/2: The Sure Word of ProphecyJuly 27, 2017
1) BY what means is all Scripture given ? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of Cod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. 3 : 16. 2) For what purpose ? “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Verse […]
STUDY 1/2: The Sure Word of Prophecy
1) BY what means is all Scripture given ?
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of Cod, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. 3 : 16.
2) For what purpose ?
“That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works.” Verse 17.
3) To whom do the things revealed from the Scriptures belong ?
“The ‘secret things belong unto the Lord our God ; but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.” Deut. 29 :29.
That is, they belong to the human family.
4) What is the last book of the Bible called ?
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” Rev. I :I.
5) What are many saying about this book even today?
Isa. 29:11-12 “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”
6) What does the Bible say?
Rev. 22:10 “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”
Revelation was given as an unfolding prophecy that is being fulfilled. It was not to be sealed, but to be understood.
7) What is said of those who read or study this book ?
” Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things which are written therein.” Verse 3.
The book of Revelation, then, is not only designed to be understood, but a blessing is
pronounced upon those who read or study it. No one would expect to obtain
a blessing by reading a book he could not understand ; hence the implication
is that he who studies this book may understand it.
8) How were the Old Testament prophecies given ?
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but holy men of God
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Peter 1: 21.
9) What is said of the interpretation of these prophecies ?
” Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation
[impulse].” Verse 20. The Peshito Syriac version renders this verse :
“No prophecy is an exposition of its own text.” The idea conveyed is that
the text in which the prophecy is found, does not explain itself ; but that one
must go to some other statement of the Holy Spirit for an explanation. No
one, unaided (relying on his own private judgment), is competent to give an
exposition of a prophecy. Its meaning should be sought elsewhere in the
word of God, ” comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” i Cor. 2 : 53.
10) When prophecy is to be fulfilled, what does God do?
Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
11) In giving their prophetic utterances; what did the prophets seek ?
” Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls ; of which sal:*
vation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of
the grace that should come unto you.” I Peter i : 9, xo.
12) By whose spirit were they actuated ?
” Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them
did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow.” Verse ii. Then all the prophecies of the Old Testament,
as well as those of the New, were dictated by .the Spirit of Christ,
and are therefore designed to be studied by Christians.
so.
13) How did Peter confirm his former preaching on the coming of
Christ?
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of
his majesty.” 2 Peter i : 16.
14) When did the apostle see the majesty (kingship) of Christ, and
hear the approbative words of God ?
” And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in
the holy mount.” Verse i8.
15) What other and more certain evidence did he have of the power
and coming of Christ ?
” 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 dawh, and the
day star arise in your hearts.” Verse 19.
The apostle assures his readers that you need not fear if you were not an eyewitness of that majesty, as though your soul would be without an anchor upon which to substantiate your faith. Rather he plainly declares you have the word more sure to you than if you saw it with your eyes, because the prophecy that God has given is absolute.
16) At the time when Jerusalem was to be destroyed, to what prophecy
did Christ point his disciples as a guide to their actions ?
” When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand).”
Matt. 24: 55
God does nothing new without revealing what He is doing from His word of prophecy to His servants. In the destruction of Jerusalem, not a single Christian perished because they understood the prophecy Christ gave, and fled to the mountains. Likewise, the same prophecies are given for our day so we might be instructed on how to act accordingly. God does not leave His children in the darkness.
17) When were all the prophecies in the book of Daniel to be understood?
“But thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of
the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” Dan.
12:4
NOTE. —Certainly it is that the study of prophecy should by no means be neglected.
This part of the word belongs to that which is said to be a lamp unto
our feet and a light unto our path. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
God gives his people, through the prophetic word, an opportunity to learn
what is coming on the earth, that they may know how to act when the predictions
shall come to pass. In view of this, whoever is overtaken unawares by
any calamity which the prophecies have pointed out, will be held guilty by
Him who so kindly reveals these things for our benefit.
“There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Baptist
“There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found: Not in the New Testament– absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.” Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’.
“To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years’ discussion with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false [Jewish traditional] glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject.
Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism.” Dr. E. T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister’s Convention, in ‘New York Examiner,’ November 16, 1893
“The Scriptures nowhere call the first day of the week the Sabbath. . .There is no Scriptural authority for so doing, nor of course, any Scriptural obligation.” The Watchman
“There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance.” -WILLIAM OWEN CARVER, ” The Lord’s Day in Our Day,” page 49.
“There is nothing in Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day.” Harold Lindsell (editor), Christianity Today, Nov. 5, 1976
“The sacred name of the Seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10quoted]… on this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages… Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week, — that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh.” Joseph Hudson Taylor, ‘The Sabbatic Question’, p. 14-17, 41.
“The first four commandments set forth man’s obligations directly toward God…. But when we keep the first four commandments, we are likely to keep the other six. . . . The fourth commandment sets forth God’s claim on man’s time and thought…. The six days of labour and the rest on the Sabbath are to be maintained as a witness to God’s toil and rest in the creation. . . . No one of the ten words is of merely racial significance…. The Sabbath was established originally (long before Moses) in no special connection with the Hebrews, but as an institution for all mankind, in commemoration of God’s rest after the six days of creation. It was designed for all the descendants of Adam.”-Adult Quarterly, Southern Baptist Convention series, Aug. 15, 1937.
“And took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . . !” Colossians 2:14 “The words ‘abolish,’ ‘take away,’ ‘destroy,’ and ‘change’ have been so persistently connected with the law by some public teachers that there exists in the minds of many people the honest conviction that all which is expressed […]
The Law in Christ
“And took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . . !”
Colossians 2:14
“The words ‘abolish,’ ‘take away,’ ‘destroy,’ and ‘change’ have been so persistently connected with the law by some public teachers that there exists in the minds of many people the honest conviction that all which is expressed by these words was done to the law by Christ.
It is true that He came to “abolish” something, and to “take away” something, and to “destroy” something, and to “change” something; but it is important that we-should know just what it was that He abolished, and what it was that He took away, and what it was that He destroyed, and what it was that He intended to change by His work in behalf of man. This we can easily learn from the Scriptures.
WHAT WAS ABOLISHED.
It is said of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that He “hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” 2 Tim. 1:10. Death is the result of sin. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
James 1:15. But “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Christ, therefore, came to abolish that which is the result of being out of harmony with the law (which is but the written transcript of the self-sacrificing character of God), and He did it, not by abolishing the law, but by bringing us into harmony with the law.
WHAT WAS TAKEN AWAY.
We read that Christ “was manifested to take away our sins.” 1 John 3:5. He is the sin-bearer, “Who His own self carried up our sins in His body to the tree, that we having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness.” 1 Peter 2:24, R.V., margin. Sin is lawlessness, and Christ was manifested to take away, not the law, but lawless-ness.
Note: In Jeremiah 4:4, the LORD tells us, “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . .” And then in Colossians 2:11-13, this promise is fulfilled in Christ . . . “In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ !”
“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; but the Last Adam was made a quickening (Life-giving) Spirit !” “For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God !”
I Corinthians 15:45 & Romans 6:10
WHAT HE CAME TO DESTROY.
The attitude of Christ toward the law is set forth in the prophecy which says: “He will magnify the law and make it honourable.” Isa. 42:21. In His sermon on the mount, which is itself but the interpretation of the princ-iples contained in the Words spoken from Mount Sinai, Christ said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am, not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matt. 5:17. He “came to explain the relation of the law of God to man, and to illustrate its precepts by His Own example of obedience.” [Desire of Ages (DA), p. 308]
But we are taught that “for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 3:8. The works of the devil are those which are contrary to God’s law. “The devil sinneth from the beginning,” and in every case “sin is the transgression of the law.” I John 3:4-8
Furthermore, Christ came to destroy the devil himself. Satan had introduced into this world rebellion against God and His law, and Christ’s mission and work were to put an end to that rebellion and the instigator of it. In order to do that, He took our flesh, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.” Heb. 2:14.
“For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God . . . !” Romans 6:10
WHAT HE CAME TO CHANGE.
It is a blessed thing to know that a change was wrought by Christ in giving Himself for man. There was certainly need that a change should be made. Men were far from righteousness, “being alienated from the Life of
God through the ignorance that is in them” (Eph. 4:18), “having no hope and without God in the world.” Eph. 2:12. “But God, Who is rich in mercy, … hath quickened us together with Christ, … and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Eph. 2:4-6. And thus “we all … are changed into the same imagefrom glory to glory.” 2 Cor. 3:18.
But more even than a change of character has been provided for us, for “we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.” Phil. 3:20, 21. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.” 1 Cor. 15:51, 52.
Glorious change! A renewed character and a renewed body! This is the fulness of the Salvation provided for us in Jesus Christ. It thus becomes evident from the teaching of the Scriptures that Christ came to abolish, not, the law, but death; to take away, not the law, but our sins; to destroy, not the law, but the devil and his works; to change, not the law, but us. And He did all this “by the sacrifice of Himself !” Heb. 9:26.
”For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, hath made me _______ (your name) free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do (give new life), in that it was weak through the flesh . . . . God sending His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and in exchange for sin, condemned sin in the flesh . . .
That the righteousness of the Law might be filled full in us, who walk not by the flesh, but by the Spirit !”
Romans 8:2-4 & Zechariah 4:6
Undated Armadale Campmeetings, 1895, “The Law in Christ; Or, the Relation Between the Law and the Gospel,”
One of the most pressing issues to arise in the early church was whether the Gentile converts who had come to Christ were to observe the law of circumcision or not. It would also discuss the relation of these newborn followers of Christ who had little-to-no knowledge in regard to the law or it’s precepts. […]
THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM & THE LAW OF MOSES I: A SCRIPTURAL CONTROVERSY
One of the most pressing issues to arise in the early church was whether the Gentile converts who had come to Christ were to observe the law of circumcision or not. It would also discuss the relation of these newborn followers of Christ who had little-to-no knowledge in regard to the law or it’s precepts. In Jerusalem, the birthplace of apostolic Christianity, a council of the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter with the apostle James, bishop of Jerusalem, overseeing the discussions and giving sentence as to the general consensus of the brethren. You can read about this controversy in Acts 15; yet many are reading Acts 15 with an understanding that the church may define what is essential in regards to the law, and declaring it as non-essential for the observance of converts from the Gentiles to Christ. The implications of this are not inconsiderable, but that will not be the purpose of this study (For that study, go to the “I’m a Gentile, not a Jew” article here).
Rather, this study is for the purpose of understanding the early Christian church’a decision as it pertains to understanding the law of God, and whether or not it was decreed as non-essential to be observed. It is not the purpose of this study to arouse further controversy on a sensitive subject, but rather to bring us all into a unity of faith with respect to what Scripture teaches.
To bring out the matter completely, we will examine texts from the Bible, as well as what history said about these councils at Jerusalem. While the Bible is sufficient, historical witnesses supply a secondary testimony, shedding more light on the matter and the controversies erupting in the early church regarding the law of God which were not plainly brought to view directly from the Scripture itself.
Do we uphold the law by keeping the commandments as much of the Bible suggests we should? Or is this council the Achille’s heel to it’s observance? Or perhaps indeed, there is a Greco-Roman Achille’s heel that exists, but it’s in the understanding of those reading their ideas into the Jerusalem council. Scripture and history will bear this out as we bring this controversy back to the table for discussion.
There are two classes of Christians today.
(1) Those who believe they should keep the law of God because they are saved.
(2) Those who don’t keep the law because they believe they are saved, with no necessity of keeping it.
How often has this second class revisited that council in Jerusalem to resort to justifying their identity as Gentiles who need not keep the law of God! So without further delay, let’s look at pulse of the issue: the council itself.
“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
” (Acts 15:1-2)
And what was the issue? It was an issue and question of salvation, and how a man is saved from sin. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” (Acts 15:5-6) Jesus had taught the apostles to teach “whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20), and the Pharisees believed that the law of circumcision was to be kept [to command them to keep THE law- that law- this particular law- of Moses], and if it, that very law of Moses itself, was not kept, those who believed in Christ and were baptized were not truly saved at all. Thus salvation from sin was the fruit of their keeping of a law of Moses, and not of believing in Christ. The great problem that was not being factored in was that it was only believing in Christ’s power to save from sin who would circumcise the heart to love God wholly, as Moses also instructed (Deuteronomy 30:6); this a man could not do of himself for salvation, as it is wholly a work of God on his behalf.
So the matter was considered, and Peter couldn’t accept the charge upon the Gentiles that they were unsaved until they were circumcised because it is “God, which knows the hearts, and He testified, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did to us; And has put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:8-9) Thus, Peter placed his finger upon the pulse of the issue of the Pharisees; an issue that they long struggled with even in the days of Christ; Peter recognized that they were also born of the Spirit of God, by which alone a man can see the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). It was this very instruction that Jesus gave to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, because it was the instruction so greatly lost sight of amongst that class of believers. The circumcision of the flesh was a sign upon the flesh of the newborn, but the circumcision of the heart was the work of the new birth: a work accomplished by the hand of God and not the hand of man.
The Gentiles constituted those who came from other faith traditions, who in part were unfamiliar with the laws, customs, and traditions of the Hebrew people. The Gentile manner of worship, practice, and things which they allowed were often in sharp variance to the precepts outlined in the laws given to Moses; so much so that the Gentiles were called the uncircumcised, being “without Christ” and “without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). It was not uncommon for Gentiles to sacrifice unclean animals (swine, eagles, lions, beasts of prey) to their gods; or else to consume them. Neither was it uncommon for them to practice sexual immorality, drink fermented wine, and in the case of governors, to oppress and persecute those whose ideas came into sharp conflict with their own; all of this was consistent with their beliefs, as it was the example set forth by many of their heathen gods.
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you [the Gentile converts] with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:…(Acts 15:28-29)
The law of circumcision is the portion of the law of Moses which they gave no such commandment as essential to salvation, believing only one circumcision as truly essential was the one performed by the Spirit of Christ. This circumcision that was truly essential was the one which “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ…” (Col. 2:11)
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL & THE LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY
In council of the apostles, James presided over the council to make the final decision based upon the consensus among them. “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
” (Acts 15:19-21)
The decision was what commands the apostles should enjoin to the Gentile converts as they were only beginning to learn of the things contained within the law. More specifically, these commands pertained to the individual believer’s own body. Paul the apostle speaks of fornication as sinning “against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). He further comments on these particular commands, saying: “…ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would incease more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God…that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
“(1 Thes. 4:1-4)
.
The decision pertaining to bodily commands as it pertained to the law came from the highest authority on earth, as the mind of God worked through His people in making a judgment. If the judgment was from God, this decision was always to speak in harmony with the law and testimony of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Yet many have gone to the extreme as to interpret that the church was given the authority to abrogate God’s law when they are minded together to do so. This sentence issued by James however was not to loose the obligation regarding what was not in those four commands. Those four commands were actually found in the law of Moses itself, thus showing the basis of their decision was guided by the law, so as to not overthrow it, but to maintain gospel order and soundness in their conclusion. It was the apostle’s judgment not to trouble the Gentiles who were coming to God, as overburdening them with more than they could bear. The reason is given, “For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him…”; or to put it simply, “They will learn to rest in time. Let the Sabbath reading of the law be a time for them to learn more.”
The Gentiles who came to the synagogues to learn of the God of the Hebrews had already been attending the assemblies every Sabbath day, as it was written: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
” (Acts 13:42) The fact that the Gentiles were keeping the Sabbath after they were converted to Christ meant that the four laws were not meant to abbrogate the whole law of Moses, especially the Sabbath observance, but only to specify that the outward observances of the law, such as circumcision and tassle-wearing were not enjoined to the Gentiles; and that the rest of their duties in the keeping of the law would be unfolded as they learned more of the principles of the law of God.
The Sabbath was especially regarded by the Gentile converts in the early church just as it was prophesied would happen in Isaiah: “Also the sons of the heathen (Gentiles), that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants, every one that keeps the sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of my covenant;
…for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. ” (Isaiah 56:6-8)
That the Gentiles who converted were expected to become established in the law, and not to disregard it a consistent principle laid out in the Scriptures (Rev. 14:12, Rev. 22:14, Rom. 7:7). The apostle Paul says that those who have the law of God, yet break it are actually teaching the Gentiles to blaspheme Him by their example.
“Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast of God…An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who has the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
You therefore which teach another, do you not teach yourself? You that preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You that say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege? You that make your boast of the law, do you, through breaking the law, dishonour God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you…”
(Rom 2:20-24)
The apostle says that to break the law is in fact dishonoring God, while giving a bad example to the Gentile converts whom they are entrusted to teach. The elder is entrusted to teach the younger the way of life.
The fact that God would allow the Gentiles to come to the law of God, and give them His Spirit, while having time to learn His law is exactly as the parable of the prodigal son. The Gentiles lost sight of the law of God, having gone astray because of their fathers who left the way of the God of Noah. Yet they were to return, and God, as a Father to them, was to meet them a great way off, and provoke the other brother to jealousy who had never left the law of God but had no love in his heart for his repentant brother (Luke 15:20, 1 John 4:20, Deut. 32:21, Rom. 11:11).
***For the second witness, the Historical Account of the Council of Jerusalem and the Law of Moses, and to understand the controversy that erupted in the second century, causing the council to depart from the law of Moses entirely, click here.
The devil had his origin as “the covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), who dwelt “in the midst of the stones of fire.” The covering Cherub’s name was Lucifer, which means “A Bearer of the Light”. These cherubs occupied a high position in heaven at the very throne of the Most High God, in “the true tabernacle, […]
The Church & Antichrist
The devil had his origin as “the covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), who dwelt “in the midst of the stones of fire.” The covering Cherub’s name was Lucifer, which means “A Bearer of the Light”. These cherubs occupied a high position in heaven at the very throne of the Most High God, in “the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Hebrews 8:2) Moses was instructed to make a pattern of this tabernacle, where golden cherubim were made to dwell in the most sacred place of the Sanctuary. The angels were always known as “spirits” and “flames of fire” (Hebrews 1:7), and God’s Sanctuary has always been the church of all the heavenly host: where He sits enthroned, and where His government reigns supreme. His law was placed as the foundation of the throne in the Sanctuary upon the earth, and that very same law was the foundation of His throne in the heavenly assembly, which assembly we are part of:
“ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”
(Heb 12:22-24)
THE LIVING STONES OF THE CHURCH
The church we are part of is the very church that the “innumerable company of angels” are part of, and that includes the cherubim. In this church, we are called “lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”
(1Pe 2:5) We are to be living stones, building up the temple of heaven. That fallen cherub was no exception, being a “flame of fire”, walking in the midst of those “stones of fire”, the angels were, and as many as are faithful and obedient to God, still remain as part of the church of God in heaven.
So what happened that Lucifer should no longer be part of that church? He began to exalt himself to equality with God. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
(Isa 14:12-14)
Lucifer, the created angel, who was part of the “church of the firstborn”, was desiring to exalt himself to equality with God, and to receive worship that was due to God and Christ alone. Yet the Scripture tells us that this honor was never given to any angels:
“Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
(Heb 1:4-6)
The angels never received the divine inheritance of worship that the Firstbegotten, the Son of God, inherited from the Father. Christ was the foundation of the throne of God, upon His shoulders the entire government and church of heaven was firmly established. So firmly fixed was this foundation, that the “church of the firstborn” is the very church Christ declared to be founded upon Himself in Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” For Christ declared in return, “upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:16,18) This honor was not ascribed to any angel to be the foundation of the church, which is built upon the Son of God, but both redeemed man and created angels were made from this Rock, which is Christ, as living stones. This is why Christ gave the acclamation to Peter’s confession by the Spirit of God, saying “You are Peter (a stone)”. The Scripture tells that this confession alone is what the true church is, and ever will be, and Christ’s confession in return is to be what all of God’s people always are in Him, the Rock of salvation. The Scripture says that we “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” (Eph 2:20-22) Christ, the firstborn and chief cornerstone of the church, is declared to be the Rock “which you are hewn (carved out) from” (Isaiah 51:1), which “has begotten you” (Deut. 32:18). This church is the only church which the gates of hell will not prevail against, yet of Lucifer it is said at his fall, “thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:15) It is fundamental to our understanding then that Christ is the Son of God.
THE FATHER OF LIARS
God is the Father of Christ, the Son. This testimony speaks true. John, the apostle, declared Christ to be “the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 1:3). Yet of the devil, Christ declares that he, in John 8:44, “…abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
Thus did Lucifer, who desired the worship that was given by God to Christ alone, fall from the very church of heaven, and so necessarily saw the gates of hell prevail against him, and why is this so? Because he refused to believe that Christ alone is the only equal with the living God, “as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name” than any angel. Satan, in exalting himself to equality with God, was not abiding in the truth of the Son of God. He was declared to be “a lair”, adding to the Word of God something that God had not declared.
The Scripture tells us that, “…he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son” (1 John 5:10). Satan had done exactly this. In exalting himself to equality with God, Satan brazenly declared that he did not believe the record God gave of Christ, His beloved Son, and by this means, had added to the Word of God and by this means he fell from heaven.
“Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? Every word of God is pure…Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:4-6).
God created all things by His Word, and Lucifer was now adding to the creation something that was not so from the beginning, and in doing so, he proved himself to be a liar. Thus he declared God to be a liar while in heaven, in not believing the record He gave of His Son. The most startling implications, not then discerned by the rebellious cherub, was the result of Lucifer seeking to exalt himself in his heart. Thus it was that another church was founded which disregarded Christ and which Satan was to be king of. That church is nothing less than the beginning of antichrist, and the stones of fire which composed the church of God were now fallen, and part of the “synagogue of Satan”, which rendered allegiance to the lies of Satan above the Word of God. Every church that is not in intimate connection with the Spirit of Christ, the Son of the living God, is a church of antichrist.
1 John 2:22-23 point this out: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
Thus, it was that Satan denied the Son of God. There is an abundance of Scriptural testimony regarding that old serpent, the father of lies, that declare that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against him, and that he has continued this warfare against the creation of God. He continues to this day to declare that God is a liar, and perverts His Word to win souls to his rebellion.
“…Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:1-5).
Christ said, “When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own.” While dishonesty and jealousy are exclusively the qualities of the devil, he imposed them upon the Father of truth, thus the prevalence of the gates of hell over one who denies the Son of the living God. Satan has ever won his converts over through subtle deceptions that overthrow God’s authority. As it was then, even so it is now.
THE CHURCH OF ANTICHRIST
Satan’s church has always used lies at it’s foundation, and the growth of his church has always been aimed at the living stones to establish them in his own building. He seeks to incite rebellion through deception, which is what he did to the angels of heaven, Adam & Eve, the worship of false gods amongst God’s professed people. In fact, in speaking of his fall, it refers to Lucifer as “the King of Babylon” (Isaiah 14:3), that is, a heathen nation that is foreign to the nation that is symbolic for God’s remnant church, “the heavenly Jerusalem”. Babylon was known for it’s worship of false gods, and when God’s people became entangled in their worship, it was evidence that Satan had found his way into Jerusalem, and for this cause, they went into captivity under the nation whose gods they served. “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.” (Lam. 4:12)
Satan artfully conceals himself under the guise of the worship of false gods. When Israel departed from the living God to worship Satan, though they professed to be Israel, they ceased to truly be Israel, or have any right to the blessings that Israel were to receive. “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these…Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.” (Jer. 7:4-11) The living God denounces those who profess to say they are the people of God, declaring they are delivered, and that they are called by the name of the only true God, and then show by their works that they are not at all the people of Jehovah, but of Baalzebub (Satan), the “king of Babylon”, and though they professed to believe the truth, underneath this profession was a manifestation of all that antichrist is and has always been.
The church was in the days of the Babylonian captivity referred to as a woman: “I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman.” (Jer. 6:2) And in prophecy, the last day antichrist church is referred to as a woman, and no less as “Babylon”.
“Come here; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore…with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication…And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Rev 17:4-5)
Satan is the king of this church, and through her, he receives worship. More than this, she is in intimate connection with the kings of the earth, thus Satan, through her, enforces his false system of worship by a church/state union. She is arrayed with precious stones and pearls, but these pearls and stones are to belong to the church of God, but instead adorn the church of antichrist.
Moreover, she is referred to as a whore, because of the false worship associated with her, just as it was with Israel in the days of their apostasy: “Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.” (Jer. 3:3) A whore is one who commits fornication against the true God, and has “a whore’s forehead”; therefore the nature of the god she worships is written upon her head, and is no less than Babylonian Satan worship in nature.
ANTICHRIST DEPARTURE FROM FAITH
This development of antichrist began in heaven, and continued with the concealed deceptions of Satan until it even began to find a foothold in the apostolic era of the Christian church. The apostle John, speaking of this, said:
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
(1Jn 2:18-19)
The apostle’s words were echoing the same voice that was spoken two millennia before, when Moses wrote: “Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;” (Deu. 13:13) A key characteristic that the apostle styled as “antichrist” was “not continuing” in the faith, by going to “serve other gods, which ye have not known.” John seeing this, declared further: “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1Jn 2:21-22) John shows how the very denial of truth that happened in heaven was happening amongst professed followers of Christ in his day, and for this cause John admonished the children of the truth to abide in the truth, that they “shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” (1 Jn 2:24) Two churches both professing to be the Israel of God were developing. One of the most startling revelations regarding antichrist which Satan set up was to “sit in the temple of God;” when the only seat in the temple of God is the throne of God, which is the place of His worship and the seat of His government, where His law is contained. Thus Satan would have one arise in the church to assume prerogatives that did not belong to him.
THE WHORE’S FOREHEAD
This culminated into Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. Being a whore, upon her forehead was written the name of her god: “Mystery” with whom Satan was mysteriously concealing himself to receive worship in her. This was “serving other gods, which ye have not known.” And for this cause, she persecutes the saints of God. Jesus said “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” (John 16:2-3) Thus we see those who are true to God, and know Him and are founded upon fundamental knowledge of the Son of God, and those who do not know the Father or His Son, but think they are serving God, when in fact they are serving the god which they know not under the false guise of worshipping God. This woman, involved in church and state union enforced upon the saints this mystery worship. “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus…” (Revelation 17:6) She not only enforced her worship of her mystery god, but moreover, enforced the falsehoods that were framed by a departure from the words of the true God, and like Eve, became a catalyst for promoting the deceptive sentiments of Satan.
Who is this church? She must necessarily meet all of these characteristics:
1) She worships a mystery god.
2) She enforces the worship of that mystery god.
3) She does so by means of a church/state union.
4) She makes war with the Son of God through making war with his church.
5) The mystery god must necessarily have Satan concealed in it’s worship: adding to or removing from the Word of God.
What is the church that identifies the characteristic marks of the antichrist church which wars against the church of the firstborn? It can be nothing less than the Catholic church.
SHE WORSHIPS A MYSTERY GOD
“The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church…” Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p. 11
“The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself…his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.” Cathechism of the Catholic church, ch. 1:234,237
This is evidence that the God of Israel was said to have been a mystery god, which “ye have not known”.
SHE ENFORCES THE WORSHIP OF THAT MYSTERY GOD
Speaking of the church that enforces the worship of it’s god by the state, the Scripture says: “in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many…” (Dan. 11:38-39)
The Catholic emperor Justinian made a decree enforceable to subject all men to the worship of the Trinity and to worship under the Catholic system:
Pope Francis addresses the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly- the largest assembly of nations ever gathered.
“CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM…
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven…
Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.”
SHE DOES SO BY MEANS OF A CHURCH STATE UNION
It should suffice that Satan has used the papacy, under which influence the kings of the earth are employed to enforce the Babylonian religion upon the world.
Consider the idea presented in 1965 from the Pope in his encyclical, Gaudium et spes:
“The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods (§76).”
There is no suggestion here that the Church’s renunciation of her rights in regard to the state is the ideal, only that sometimes this move might be prudent in order to establish her credibility. Flowing in the same vein of thinking, but more direct in it’s tone, it shows another of the highest legally binding document of the Catholic church (the encyclical) AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES:
“We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself…Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens…. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages – above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles – and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defence, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.”
Again, it says that the church that for many years exercised the authority over the state to persecute God’s church is tolerant where she does not have the influence over the state. It was stated by Pope Francis that the orderly development of “a civil, pluralistic society requires” that the “authentic spirit of religion” not be “confined” to “personal conscience but that its significant role in the construction of society is recognized,” in his remarks to the Italian president. “On the other hand, public authorities—who are primarily expected to create the conditions for a just and sustainable development, so that civil society can develop all its potentialities—can find a valuable and useful support for their action in the commitment and loyal collaboration of the Church.”
SHE MAKES WAR WITH THE SON OF GOD THROUGH MAKING WAR WITH HIS CHURCH
That the Catholic church persecuted other professing Christians by means of the state simply because they would not adhere to their form of doctrine and manner of worship is abundantly testified to throughout history and even at times through the confession of the Catholic church itself in places where she has little to no influence over matters of state.
THE MYSTERY GOD MUST NECESSARILY HAVE SATAN CONCEALED IN IT’S WORSHIP: ADDING TO OR REMOVING FROM THE WORD OF GOD
Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to worship a Trinity. We have only a command to worship God the Father, and that His Son, by His divine inheritance, is to also receive worship. Satan knows this, and has sought for many centuries to secure worship for himself, yet was never permitted to have this in the church of heaven. He idealized the concept in his heart of the Trinity: he disregarded the special prerogative belonging to Christ alone as the Son of God in truth who is entitled to worship, thus removing from the Word of God, and he placed himself in equality with God, to receive worship and added to God’s Word, declaring Him to be a liar. The Trinity presented three divine beings under the worship of one God, yet Scripture never sanctions the worship of three, but one God, and a fundamental part of that worship is honoring and giving worship to His only-begotten Son. Never in Scripture is there a place where we must worship the Spirit of God & Christ, but only to worship God and Christ from which we receive that Spirit. In the Trinity, the worship of the Holy Spirit is a concept idealized in the heart of Satan to be enthroned upon the hearts of men, securing worship from them through his subtlety. Instead of being the angel that is “a ministering spirit”, he flatters himself to be “the holy spirit”, giving himself a name and honor above what God had bestowed upon the angels.
Simply because he conceals himself as this, does not by any means imply that the Holy Spirit does not exist, but rather that the Holy Spirit is not a third divine being to be honored, exalted, worshipped with the Father and His Son. Rather the Spirit of God is their agency whereby they may be everywhere present, teaching, admonishing, guiding, and enlivening the children of God.
IN CONCLUSION
It may be plainly seen that the church of God has always been built up of His faithful children as “a spiritual house”, a “habitation of God through the Spirit”, and that the church of antichrist, the false systems of worship that departs from the worship of the true God and Christ, has a “house that is left desolate” (Matthew 23:37-38) because of the “overspreading of abominations” (Daniel 9::27, Matthew 24:15), being devoid of the Spirit of Christ. These are two opposing forces that have run parallel since the fall of Lucifer in heaven, and that the same measures which caused him to fall are brought to bear by him against God’s church in every age since that time.
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Gal. 4:28-30)
“During this indefinite time a considerable amount of a sort of theokrasia seems to have gone on between the Christian cult and the almost equally popular and widely diffused Mithraic cult, and the cult of Serapis-Isis-Horus. From the former it would seem the Christians adopted Sunday as their chief day of worship in- stead of […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Historical
“During this indefinite time a considerable amount of a sort of theokrasia seems to have gone on between the Christian cult and the almost equally popular and widely diffused Mithraic cult, and the cult of Serapis-Isis-Horus. From the former it would seem the Christians adopted Sunday as their chief day of worship in- stead of the Jewish Sabbath.” H. G. WELLS, “The Outline of History” (New and Revised), page 543.
“The first who ever used it [the Sabbath to denote the Lord’s day (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus-he lived about the time that Repurtus did (which was the beginning of the twelfth century)-who calls the Lord’s day by the name of Christian Sabbath.” PETER HEYLYN, “History of the Sabbath,” Part 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 12.
“Bear in mind that the substitution [of the first for the seventh day] was not a coerced happening; it could not be a sudden, but only a very slow development, probably never anticipated, never even designed or put into shape by those chiefly interested, but creeping almost unconsciously into being.” WILLIAM B. DANA, “A Day of Rest and Worship,” page 174.
The first direct reference to Sunday as a day of rest from physical toil we find in Tertullian, in about A.D. 200 in his Liber de Oratione, chapter 23. “We, however ( just as we have received ), only on the day of the Lord’s resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil.” TERTULLIAN, “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. 111, page 689.
“The early Christians had at first adopted the Jewish seven- day week with its numbered week days, but by the close of the third century A.D. this began to give way to the planetary week; and in the fourth and fifth centuries the pagan designations became generally accepted in the western half of Christendom. The use of the planetary names by Christians attests the growing influence of astrological speculations introduced by converts from paganism. … During these same centuries the spread of Oriental solar worships, especially that of Mithra (Persian sun worship) in the Roman world, had already led to the substitution by pagans of dies Solis for dies Saturni, as the first day of the planetary week…. Thus gradually a pagan institution was ingrafted on Christianity.” HUTTON WEBSTER, Ph.D., Rest Days, pages 220, 221.
Eusebius, fourth-century bishop and friend of the wicked Emperor Constantine, whose Sunday law is the first on record, flatly says: “All things, whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day [as they had begun to call Sunday].” –“Commentary on the Psalms.”
“Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early, indeed, into the place of the Sabbath…. The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps, at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.” AUGUSTUS NEANDER, General history of the Christian Religion and Church” (Rose’s translation), Vol. 1, page 186.
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was […]
Eternally Protestant: Religious Liberty Renounced
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”
(Revelation 13:11-12)
There are two beasts depicted in Bible prophecy; the first an the second. The first is Papal and the second is Protestant. The first is European and the second is American. The first is called the beast, and the second called the image of the beast. Prophecy tells us that America shall follow in the steps of Old Europe; that the Papal exercise of authority over men’s consciences in that land shall be exercised by the Protestant churches in America. Yet for Protestantism to come to the place where Papalism has been, and to exercise all the power that was seen in the dark ages, Protestantism must become something other than what it ever was. What does it mean to renounce the protest, and say that Protestantism is over? It is a fearful thing to renounce the protest against the Roman Catholic system; it means more than most realize, and takes in more than most think. We will look at the history of Protestantism, and examine the principles, and the startling and dreadful consequences of renouncing it.
THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM/PROTESTANTISM
It was under the oppressive reign of the Papacy, the apostate church of Bible prophecy, that religious liberty took a foothold in the hearts of the people. The Papacy began it’s dirge against freedom of conscience first when it began to rise to power and prominence amongst the emperors of Europe. It enforced homage to the fallen church, to violate the Sabbath commandment while resting upon “the venerable day of the sun”, and to disregard His statutes, while bowing to “the most holy Trinity” as the supreme three-in-one god who, according to the Catholic church teachings, placed the Popes in a position of authority over the consciences of men. They had interpreted that it was given to Peter to bind things in heaven a
The keys were said to be the keys to heaven, earth, and consciences of men; hence the triple crown of authority.
nd earth, which included their consciences. The Bible was veiled in mystery, being inaccessible to the common people due to it’s latin vernacular. It was understood that the priests who related what was in the Bible were to be it’s authorities and the only true expositors of Scripture. This reliance upon man for the Word of God left a veil upon the hearts of men, and kept them in darkness.
God would raise up reformers, who would be employed to work great reformations in their communities and beyond; this kept the light of Bible from becoming wholly exstinguished from the land, but it was largely fulfilled what was spoken of in the Scripture:
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.” (Amos 8:11-13)
The church that was in Rome was given much counsel, to keep their feet from turning into the way of apostasy, declaring that “the gospel of Christ” was “the power of Go
d unto salvation,” and that the “just shall live by faith”; but the counsel gradually was lost sight of, the power of the gospel was exchanged for the power of the state; faith in God’s Word was a concept that was strange and dark, and all men, whether they had faith or not, were expected to yield themselves to the Roman church’s allegiance, or be threatened with death. Yet it was under one reformer that the entreaties to the church in Rome were finally heeded. The dark mind of one Roman church priest, Martin Luther, tormented deeply, there was a longing for a power higher than himself to assure salvation. In his studies of the Scripture, the words of Paul to the church of Rome were as the light which leads to everlasting day, “The just shall live by faith…”. From that light alone, he began to see a number of matters proving the Roman church to be a system counteracting living faith, and protested the current doctrine form of salvation. The word spread like fire in the dry brush; the hearts of people burned within them to catch a glimpse of the gospel. The power of the apostate church was broken, of whom it was said “All the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8) The apostate church was said to be that rise of the “mystery of iniquity” which takes away the power of godliness; the principles of the Roman church were, and still are, after the world, and not Christ.
Luther maintained his conscience bound to be true to the Highest Authority of heaven.
Martin Luther’s death warrant was nearly secured. An diet was held at Worms, in Germany, to have Martin Luther renounce his works which contradicted the present positions of the Catholic church. Yet Luther, having tasted the gospel’s power, and seen a glimpse of it’s beauty, responded the word which ignited the flames of religious liberty that would not so soon be extinguished: “Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” Upon his return from the diet at Worms to Wittenburg, the edict of Worms was issued. It stated:
“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”
The death sentence and assassination attempts against him failed; he was anointed by God to do a work, that “if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it” (Acts 5:39). This excommunication of Luther was revealed to a German prince, Frederick of Saxony, who had received communicated via divine revelation of the work of Luther, and subsequently, he extended measures to protect him; hiding him for a considerable amount of time in Wartburg [Literally translated, “Watchman mountain”] Castle. It was there that Luther began to translate the Bible into a common language that could be understood by all; that of German. The Bible thus being translated, it was delivered to the princes of Germany. The power of Popery was broken in their hearts as they read the Scriptures; a power which was heaven-ordained bound their souls closely to God; the “mystery of godliness” in Christ Jesus had once more broken the separating power of the mystery of iniquity.
The power of the gospel through this protest grew large; it’s influence was felt everywhere. Yet Luther was not, of himself, the basis of what the word “Protestant” means; it was rather a declaration of a God-fearing conscience, which would honor their conviction to duty above the decrees of mortal men if they should be demanded to make a decision. The diet of Speyer was convened to seek bringing the influences of Protestantism and Catholicism to a negotiation; the princes convinced the diet that a definite decision should not be made until a general council was held, and it was said that “every State shall so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Majesty.” This was liberally interpreted to mean religious liberty; and the doors were opened further for advancement of the gospel. Yet less than three years later, it was repealed, and the Pope and the Emperor were demanding submission to it’s church/state authority. The princes were convened at another diet, and stood firmly against the demand, arguing conscience, and contending for religious liberty.
Here is t
hat:
“Dear Lords, Cousins, Uncles, and Friends! Having repaired to this diet at the summons of his majesty, and for the common good of the empire and of Christendom, we have heard and learnt that the decision of the last diet concerning our holy Christian faith are to be repealed, and that it is proposed to substitute for them certain restrictive and onerous resolutions.
King Ferdinand and the other imperial commissaries, by affixing their seals to the last Recess of Spires, had promised, however, in the name of the emperor, to carry out sincerely and inviolably all that it contained, and to permit nothing that was contrary to it. In like manner, also, you and we, electors, princes, prelates, lords, and deputies of the empire, bound ourselves to maintain always and with our whole might every article of that decree. We cannot therefore consent to its repeal:… because it concerns the glory of God and the salvation of our souls, and that in such matters we ought to have regard, above all, to the commandment of God, who is King of kings and Lord of lords; each of us rendering him account for himself, without caring the least in the world about majority or minority.
We form no judgment on that which concerns you, most dear lords; and we are content to pray God daily that he will bring us all to unity of faith, in truth, charity, and holiness through Jesus Christ, our throne of grace and our only mediator. But in what concerns ourselves, adhesion to your resolution (and let every honest man be judge!) would be acting against our conscience, condemning a doctrine that we maintain to be christian, and pronouncing that it ought to be abolished in our states, if we could do so without trouble. This would be to deny our Lord Jesus Christ, to reject his holy Word, and thus give him just reason to deny us in turn before his Father, as he had threatened….For these reasons, most dear lords, uncles, cousins, and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we Protest by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in any thing that is contrary to God, to his holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires…”
The word protestant, and the protest began because of the protest of Luther, but it was enlarged, and proven successful that religious liberty was from the protest of the German princes, by which the name Protestant came. Therefore, it enlarges it’s span to far beyond Luther. It upholds the freedom of conscience to worship God freely, independent of the condemnation of man to intervene where it is not to intrude. To so intrude into such a sacred place, would be as the serpent intruding upon Adam and Eve, to come between either of them and their God; whether through subtle deception or force, the principle is the same. The protest takes in all who would honor the right to the individual’s accountability to God, above the state, and that the state is not to act as that old serpent into matters where it does not belong. Therefore, the giving of the gospel to set aright erring man placed enmity between the serpent and Eve; and Eve was to, in obedience to the gospel, honor the Creator above the creature, and not the creature above the Creator.
Thus, freedom of choice was always given to mankind by God to make the choice they wanted; yet nothing was to interpose itself between the subjects of heaven and their God; likewise, the gospel maintained it’s claims upon an individual’s soul to be subject to God’s authority first, and any authority of the creature, whether in heaven or earth, second, so long as it that secondary authority did not seek to usurp the homage given to God.
These claims are found in the words of the gospel:
“And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”
(Genesis 3:15)
It doesn’t matter how Satan does it, by deception or force, he interposes himself between the soul and God, as though he had authority to do so…
Christ, in the garden first gave the gospel of His suffering, and declared His power to separate the soul’s influence from the one who had usurped the place of God: specifically the serpent. Thus Christ was kindling the reformation in the heart of man by the gospel. He is the Firestarter of Protestantism; protesting the right of the serpent (the authority of a creature) to place himself between God and man; the Papacy, believing itself to have prerogative over the conscience, did exactly this; and it will again according to the prophecy:
“And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas [the people] and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” (Daniel 11:45)
Protestantism is therefore an eternal principle of the claims of God upon the soul; in heaven among the angels when Lucifer was rebelling, it was the angels. This scene is described in the war in heaven; and is further related in the Story of Redemption, p.16, “Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty, rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Lucifer that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which He had conferred upon His Son.”
Eve sought to reveal this principle when she explained her reason for obeying the express command of God not to eat from the tree; and the gospel that makes men free and obedient children of God are to show their love to their Creator above husband, wife, mother, father, or child (Luke 14:26).
That divine principle of loving God above all, and honoring His authority (keeping His commandments) was simply reignited with the giving of the gospel in the hearts of Luther, and the German princes, but it cannot be renounced so long as time endures, and the true gospel abides in the heart.
THE UNITED STATES ADOPTS THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTESTANTISM
It was this protestant principle upon which the United States was built. It’s Constitution guaranteed freedom of conscience, as declared in the first amendment, and guarded by the fourteenth amendment.
The 1st declares:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
The 14th declares:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Justices of the court have determined that protection of conscience and right to worship is protected under the first amendment, and that are “immunities of citizens of the United States.” For easy reference, I will cite two such examples:
Justice Owen Roberts, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) stated that: “The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act.”
Justice John Paul Steves, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) stated that: “The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress’ power to interfere with the individual’s freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States’ power to legislate. The individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”
The United States was built upon the principles of conscience, and this is clear. The intent of securing conscience from the Papal beast’s enforced worship, and usurping the prerogative of the heart, which is to render due submission to God above fallen man’s erring opinions, was clear. George Washington in 1789, in a letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, said so:
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
Church and State in this present earth are made to be separate. Where heaven isn’t, the church isn’t.
Founding father John Adams said in a letter four years before the Constitution was worked out, the intent of having it: “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.” Letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
Another drafter of the Constitution and an early supreme court justice, Oliver Ellsworth, said the following: “In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.”
RENOUNCING THE PROTEST
What, then, does it mean then to renounce the protest? It means much every way. It means the end of liberty of conscience, of individual accountability of the soul to the claims of God. It justifies the act of Lucifer to interpose itself, and condemns the act of the angels. It justifies the Papal
claims of authority, and condemns Luther & the protestant princes. It overturns strict obedience to the Word of God above the word of mere men or devils; that nothing can be said against wickedness but that it should suffer denunciations, threats, and persecution. To summarize, it means an end to the gospel, which is a revelation of God’s authority, power, righteousness, mercy, love, and will. An end to the gospel in the hearts of those who proclaim such a message; an end to the freedom to proclaim that gospel; an end to those lives that obey the gospel.
In January 2014, an Anglican bishop by the name of Tony Palmer proclaimed a message which will do that very thing. Palmer delivered a special 
message at the Charismatic Evangelical Leadership Conference hosted by prominent prosperity Evangelist and Pentecostal leader Kenneth Copeland. Before the message, Copeland announced, “You’re going to talk about tonight for a looooong time!” and introduced Palmer to the stage. He was an ecumenical bridgebuilder amongst Catholic and Protestant churches seeking to unite them in common cause and faith, making an end of the separation that exists between them; and was closely aligned to the Charismatic Pentecostal movement, and also a friend of Pope Francis. America in Bible prophecy is represented as having lamblike power in it’s two horns: the Constitution (Republic) and the Declaration of Independence (Protestant). Yet it would betray those warm qualities and “speak as a dragon”. A fitting description of the lamblike profession of a Christian who advocates things contrary to the principles of Christianity; in this case, Protestantism.
To make an end of the separation that exists between the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church means a separation from God, and an approval (or at least justifiable tolerance) of those things for which the Papacy believes. One of the chief beliefs of the Papacy is the doctrine of temporal power; which means that the kingdom of God was established on the earth when Christ resurrected, and the throne was given for Peter and his successors to occupy; thus the Pope has authority over the kings of this world. Instead of the church of Rome affirming Christ’s words, “My Kingdom is not of this world…”, she rather takes the offer of one who usurped the authority of this world by deception, and sought to have Jesus accept the throne of this world as His own.
Where Christ overcame, Rome failed. That interposition of Satan was manifested in the Papacy exercising earthly power of politics and exerting force, instead of the heavenly power of true conversion of the heart and freely surrendering the heart to a God of love; it wielded the sword of the kings of the earth, rather than the Sword of God’s Spirit, which is the Word of God. Thus, it was against the Spirit of Protestantism, where the conscience is captive to God and not men, and demonstrates religious liberty always. Can any advocate making an end to the separation, or to join themselves to such a church, without also saying the protest of honoring the Creator above the creature is over? To repudiate the protest is to repudiate the principles upon which the protest was made.
Palmer, coming with just such a message. At the Charismatic conference, where frequently another spirit manifests itself under the speaking of 
obscure and vain babblings, he declared exactly what the lamblike beast’s profession is. The lamblike beast “does great miracles, so that he makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceives them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast.” The miracles are performed in the sight of the Papacy; the counterfeit miracle-working Christian movement is definitely Pentecostalism, and fire coming down from heaven was the very judgment that fell upon those who knew Elijah’s identity as a man of God. Thus, these false prophets deceive and make claims to be Elijah, and to call down fire on anyone who opposes that claim. Tony Palmer came to that conference declaring this as his very identity. “I come to you, at this years minister conference in the Spirit and power of Elijah. If you look closely, the work of Elijah was to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers, to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord.”
Surely all would agree, such a claim demands the attention of the people. What was it that Palmer came to declare? He came to declare that children of the protestant movement were to be reunited with the Papal fathers. He declared: “the protest is over…”, citing the “diabolic” [literally devilish in Latin] division caused by Luther in dividing the Catholic church, leading to many other churches, as the source of controversy. Contradicting himself, he agreed on Luther’s argument that salvation was by faith; while it was the Catholic church that demanded Luther renounce the protest (thus stifle the Spirit of the gospel kindled in his heart), or else be disfellowshipped, leaving no choice but for more churches to arise as they studied the Bible diligently for the light shining brightly in the deep Papal darkness.
The Lutheran World Federation in 1999 signed a document with the Catholic church agreeing on the doctrine of justification by faith; thus Palmer declared triumphantly, “there is no more protest… brothers and sisters, Luther’s protest is over. Is yours?… if there is no more protest, how can there be a Protestant church? Maybe we are all Catholics again…” The argument Palmer employed was to set aside the differences that they held, and to agree to be united in Jesus regardless of truth; yet unlike Elijah, there is no call to repent of the apostasy and Baal-worship that Israel had partaken of, but rather a call to repent from those who took their stand for the gospel, and be joined with the ones worshipping Baalim.
This was the fearful counterfeit of the Elijah message he proclaimed. He was also an ambassador to the Charismatics “in the sight of the beast”, delivering a video message from Pope Francis addressed to the leaders representing hundreds of thousands of Charismatic Evangelicals. What he did was but a vessel for the events that would follow. His message would not end at himself, but would send waves throughout the professedly Protestant world and accomplish a counterfeit revival and reconciliation to 
“the fathers” of the church of Rome, and be proclaimed by many Charismatic leaders, and from them, to the all the denominational churches, who subsequently would come into full communion with the Roman Catholic Papacy. By this announcement, the harlot woman of Revelation 17, drunk with fornication and the blood of the saints by reason of her doctrinal corruption and presumption of the right to exercise state power, was now to reconcile with her daughters. How significant can one message be! As a result, Kenneth Copeland, one of the leading Charismatic leaders of his movement, recorded with the help of Tony Palmer a message to be relayed back to Pope Francis. In it, he said “My dear sir…we believe God with you… all of these leaders each represent literally tens of thousands of people…”. Copeland summarizing the message to the leadership conference, declared: ” “Heaven is thrilled over this…You know what is so thrilling to me? When we went into the ministry 47 years ago, this was impossible.”
To renounce the protest is the justify the evils that formerly existed. It is to revive the intolerance of the Papacy; it is to unite the Protestants to her deeds; it is to renounce the liberties of the United States; as it is written, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.” (1 Cor. 6:15) Yet, these churches have taken the members of the church, and sold them into the hand of her harlotry, to drink the communion cup of her wickedness; to partake of her deeds.
Not long after, on June 24th, 2014, a meeting was arranged by Palmer with the Pope. Someone of the largest representative officials of the Evangelical and Charismatic movement were in attendance. The seven men represented over 800,000,000 professed Christians from all denominations of the world, including Seventh-day Adventists who are part of the World Evangelical Alliance. Including Catholics, the total people represented amongst 8 individuals was 2,000,000,000 people.
It consisted of 7 prominent Evangelical leaders attending the Vatican to grab ahold of the paganized Christ of the Papacy; “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:1-
4) than the Jesus of the Bible. Thus fulfilling the verse: “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread (doctrine), and wear our own apparel (churches): only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isaiah 4:1) To the true Jesus, this would be taking His name upon themselves in a vain profession; He cannot accept into the courts of heaven any who do not have His righteousness upon them, and have not partaken of His bread of consecration, which is the truth from heaven. These women are symbolic of representative churches, seven being a perfect number, seeking to request Jesus to do exactly this. Yet it is only another Jesus which could accept such a claim; a counterfeit Spirit of Elijah leading to a counterfeit Christ, that destroys religious freedom, and does want the kingdom of this world. This Jesus is nothing less than that old serpent that deceived Eve. Even so, these women are deceived, and take hold of the Jesus of the Papacy.
The representative men were Kenneth Copeland, James Robison, John Arnott, the three leading men of the World Evangelical Alliance, Geoff Tunnicliffe, Thomas Schirrmacher, and Brian Stiller, as well as Tony Palmer. It was a three-hour meeting, 6 times longer than the typical meeting with the Pope, stressing how much value the current Pope placed on this event. All these were present to pave the way for presenting the message that the protest was over, and that reconciliation to visible unity of their faith could begin to take place.
THE WINDS OF CHANGE
Tony Palmer called the division of Luther “spiritual racism”, which Copeland affirmed, and said the answer is to “abolish the law that empowers it.” If they realized that the law is liberty of conscience, if they realized it was the law of the Constitution of the United States, would their sentiments be different? It was only several weeks after this meeting that two interviews with him took place. One from James Robison’s son, who asked Palmer’s thoughts on the Papacy being “the beast of Revelation” as some call it, and the other from Seventh-day Adventist radio hosts, who asked him questions, but did not delve into the importance of seeing the matter as it truly was, thus Palmer simply promoted his belief and moved on, with a precious opportunity to share the truth gone and the interview strangely disappearing from the station’s records. It was evident that God would seek 
to open Palmer’s eyes to the nature of the work he was doing, yet Satan had used Palmer for this work, and he that “has the power of death” brought Palmer into a motorcycle accident where he died only a week later. This only served to embolden those prominent ministers who heard and believed the message he proclaimed, to advance it’s cause.
Kenneth Copeland spoke in one of his conferences about the meeting with the Papacy, claiming that the miracle-working power began with at the Vatican with the prayer of a pope. That Pope, who prayed to and worshipped the Holy Spirit, asking for a new pentecost, where there is no specific command to pray or worship the Spirit. It is said that this spirit that was poured out upon the Pentecostal Protestants were to bring about the process of unity amongst Catholics and Protestants; to reverse the protest.
Following this course, that more significant events should happen flowing from the same vein of the spirit of antichrist. We are told of the Papal beast that it had a deadly wound (Rev. 13:3); speaking of it’s loss of authority over the governing agencies of the world. This began with the Protest of the princes, which opened the way for religious liberty, and the United States, and consummated with Napoleon’s general, Berthier, taking captive the Pope in 1798. Thus the Protestant reformation and religious liberty are united; to renounce one shall mean the removal of the other, and it will mean the healing of the deadly wound the Papacy sustained, both religiously and politically. The Lutherans meeting on the 499 year anniversary of Luther’s protest with Pope Francis to enter into the process of leaving behind their former divisions and calling an end to the protest, was a significant event. Speaking of this “wound”, Pope francis called “for this wound in the body of Christ to be healed. This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavors, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue.” In similar wording, the Pope, when announcing a “jubilee” in 2015-2016, and opened the “doors of mercy” to invite all to enter into the church to find mercy from them, he said that he did so because “it’s a favorable time to heal wounds,” according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The year started Dec. 8, 2015 and ended Nov. 20.
NATIONAL APOSTASY
We are told that the United States lamblike beast will “speak as a dragon”. Christ said it was “from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” The heart of the United States is in Washington, D.C. where all of it’s legislative branch is concerned; literally being known across the United States as “the heart of the nation”. It is from Washington, D.C. that this voice will be manifested.
Thus it was, that during the same period of time that the Evangelical leaders were meeting at the Vatican, the a close companion of Copeland,
Truly, the armies are gathering together for the battle of Armageddon.
Rodney Howard-Browne, held a call for America’s turning back to God at Washington, D.C.’s Constitution Hall, one of the closest buildings to the White House and Congressional Building. In the meetings, many politicians spoke favorably of Howard-browne’s mission, and several prominent Evangelical/Charismatic leaders spoke at the event in what they said was the Spirit of Elijah, to call for the nation to turn back to God. Howard-Brown said the event was to “light the fire in the belly of the beast…”; had he realized that it is the beast of America that calls down fire from heaven in the sight of men? He said it was to “get Jesus back in the government” that these meetings were held; yet this, as we had already looked at earlier, is not the Jesus of the Bible that wants to be in the governments of this world. The same sentiments were expressed by Jews who sought to make Christ king before the time, not discerning His true mission; thus the same error held by the Catholic church that the kingdom of God is on this present earth is largely held in these Charismatic communities who are grabbing earnestly to wield political influence and power. Lastly, in the meeting, he called “the separation of church and state” “a bunch of garbage”; all this proclaimed by leading Charismatics in the very heart, where the memorial of the Constitutional Republic was erected.
Standing where he ought not…
Further, in Washington, D.C., on the Day of atonement period of time on God’s calendar, the “day of judgment”, which fell on September 24th, 2015, the Jesuit Pope Francis, the very epitome of signs against the Constitution, spoke in a joint-meeting to the Senate & House of Congress, the legislative branch of the United States. The Papacy, the symbol of desolation, apostasy, and the removal of God’s presence, was greeted by awestruck men welcoming his message to the American people, who were represented by all the leading politicians of every State. Thus it was a symbol of God’s judgment; that the time of national apostasy was now ripe. The speaker of the House who invited the Pope said he had invited previous popes for the last 20 years, but only was it the Jesuit Pope who agreed. Seeming to herald the voice of warning, John Adams, the second president of the United States, said “I do not like the late resurrection of the Jesuits….If ever any congregation of men could merit eternal perdition on earth and in hell… it is this company of Loyola. Our system, however, of religious liberty must afford them an asylum; but if they do not put the purity of our elections to a severe trial, it will be a wonder.” It was further said by General Lafeyette, who united in the work with Thomas Jefferson of writing a Constitutional Declaration of the rights of man for France,: “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty.”
That God mercifully held back the Popes from speaking in the heart of the nation until the time of national apostasy would ripen was showing His longsuffering and forebearance, and love for His people, and desiring that “none should perish, but all come to repentance” under the most favorable conditions, where the proclamation of the gospel was free to go forward without restrictions upon religious liberty.
Donald Trump promises to secure power for Evangelical Christians if he might secure their support.
THE GATHERING
Again, a call was made to Charismatic, Evangelical, and Protestant leaders, which included James Robison, and was scheduled to feature Kenneth Copeland, to gather irrespective of their doctrinal divides, and to come together in “a solemn assembly” to pray unitedly for God to bring the nation to Him, and have His laws in the government. It was a call for them to unite, and to take accountability for the nation. The Gathering was held, and it’s mission was stated to be so closely aligned with Catholic ideology: “The church must again become the con
science of the government. Through its national solemn assembly it should clearly and respectfully call political leadership to God’s principles for government…which means that we cannot be so entrenched within political parties that we are not free to speak truth to power. It also means we must begin speaking with one voice so that the nation might see a unified church and not one that is fractured and scattered by differences in how we practice our faith.”
Notice what the Gathering is about? It is for the purpose of the church “again” becoming “the conscience of the government” to “call political leadership to God’s principles for government.” Yet God’s actual principles for government, and the promotion of being the conscience of the government are two ideas wholly at odds one with another.
Months earlier, Donald Trump made a promise to Evangelicals if they would vote for him. “The power of our group of people together…if you add it up … it could be 240, 250 million. And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have… you know the fact is that there is nothing the politicians can do to you if you band together. You have too much power. But the Christians don’t use their power…We have to strengthen. Because we are getting… less and less and less powerful in terms of a religion, and in terms of a force…And by the way, Christianity will have power…Because if I’m [elected President], you’re going to have plenty of power. You don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”
Donald Trump promising to secure Evangelical’s power if they will secure him the presidency.
From this, rose the Evangelical Advisory board, which had both Kenneth Copeland and James Robison, two of the men who had attended the 7-man representative meeting at the Vatican with Pope Francis. Through Ben Carson, Robison agreed to meet and counsel Trump, and related the story at a Kenneth Copeland meeting. Robison then proceeded to pray that God’s kingdom would be established “on earth as it is in heaven”, and for His laws to be the laws of the land- a true sound of alarm, since their idea of God’s law being legislated would force a religion upon Americans. More than this, Robison’s idea of what constitutes God’s law is the law of ten commandments which were changed by the Papacy, which includes the change from Sabbath, the rest day of God after creation was finished, to Sunday, the day of the sun.
The Advisory board however, would answer those very prayers, and was formed under the influence of Ben Carson, a former Seventh-day Adventist who ran for president. The purpose of the board was stated by the campaign. They “announced a new executive board convened to provide advisory support to Mr. Trump on those issues important to Evangelicals and other people of faith in America.
The executive board will also lead a much larger Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee to be announced later this month.”
The Evangelicals are to advise Trump on making important decisions, and to lead a larger “Cultural” committee, to have all of them work together. Just as Constantine of old did the same to unite the divided empire. Added to the “larger Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee” were 34 prominent Catholics also several months later. When speaking on what the Evangelical Advisory board’s specific role would be, the website says “the formation of the board represents Donald J. Trump’s endorsement of those diverse issues important to Evangelicals and other Christians, and his desire to have access to the wise counsel of such leaders as needed.” Trump stated, “I have such tremendous respect and admiration for this group and I look forward to continuing to talk about the issues important to Evangelicals, and all Americans, and the common sense solutions I will implement when I am President.” At his nominating speech, Trump thanked the Evangelical community: “I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because I’ll tell you what, the support they’ve given me, and I’m not sure I totally deserve it, has been so awesome and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight…They have much to contribute to our politics…”
Shortly after, Trump spoke at a Christian dominionist gathering. The dominionist theology teaches that the Christians should have dominion in every area of life, including government. That the Pope spoke at Congress was but a sign of the nature of what was in the heart of the people, in the heart of Protestants. It shows a lack of the gospel; desolate of God’s presence. Therefore, the Papacy in prophecy has had the legacy of being called “the abomination of desolation”. The government of the people have lost sight of the light of God’s principles, and as such, the prince of darkness interposes himself, as he did with Eve; and by prophetic-fallen Eve, to interpose upon the saints of God a legislative authority such as the Papacy held in old-Europe. Then will persecution be revived in such a manner as has not been witnessed since that time.
Trump, because of the widespread support of Evangelicals, became president, to execute his promises. Evangelicals have hailed him widely as God’s chosen to bring revival to the nation. Trump’s motto is for the government of the people to be “one people, under one God, saluting one flag.” This is indeed true in a church/state. The flag of heaven’s banner cannot be honored; the kingdom of God in the world to come must be renounced for men to seek to make this world their kingdom. All of this pulling together has culminated in a few short years to become what it is now. This began with the renouncing of the protest, and seeking full unity with the Catholic church, and it will end in persecution of God’s children.
Paula White, who is on the Advisory board, commenting on the unity after Trump was elected, said: “Far more than what divides us, this election has revealed what unites us. I have never seen such solidarity between evangelicals and Catholics, Pentecostals, charismatics and Baptists. We were brought together with a mutual love for our country and through a mutual faith in God.”
Truly, we must seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; to say with Christ, “My Kingdom is not of this world”, and to make our stand in honoring God above men. Even so, amen.
“Christ was a protestant. He protested against the formal worship of the Jewish nation, who rejected the counsel of God against themselves. He told them that they taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and that they were pretenders and hypocrites. Like whited sepulchers they were beautiful without, but within full of impurity and corruption. The Reformers date back to Christ and the apostles. They came out and separated themselves from a religion of forms and ceremonies. Luther and his followers did not invent the reformed religion. They simply accepted it as presented by Christ and the apostles. The Bible is presented to us as a sufficient guide.” Review and Herald, June 1, 1886
“The observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church.” Augsburg Confession of Faith. “They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Lutheran
“The observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church.” Augsburg Confession of Faith.
“They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of theTen Commandments.” -Augsburg Confession of Faith, Art. 28, par. 9.
“They [Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord’s day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue [the ten commandments]; and they have no example more in their mouths than they change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church’s power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue.” The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff, the Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon, only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation].
“For up to this day mankind has absolutely trifled with the original and most special revelation of the Holy God, the ten words written upon the tables of the Law from Sinai.”-“Crown Theological Library,” page I78.
“The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together, and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt, this took place as early as the first part of the second century.”-Bishop GRIMELUND, “History of the Sabbath,” page 60.
“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance.”- AUGUSTUS NEANDER, “History of the Christian Religion and Church,” Vol. 1, page 186.
“I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments…Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity abrogate sin also.”-MARTIN LUTHER, Spiritual Antichrist,” pages 71, 72.
“We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish Sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christian of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both.” The Sunday Problem, a study book by the Lutheran Church (1923) p.36
“But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel …. These churches err in their teaching, for scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect” John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp.15, 16
“For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday, then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has the right to do it?” George Sverdrup, ‘A New Day.’
“The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Moody Bible Institute
“The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?” – D.L. MOODY, “Weighed and Wanting,” page 47.
“I honestly believe that this commandment [the fourth, or Sabbath commandment] is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.’ It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was-in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.’ – Id., page 46.
“This Fourth is not a commandment for one place, or one time, but for all places and times.” D.L. Moody, at San Francisco, Jan. 1st, 1881.
What is the secret to health at a fundamental level? How might we secure it, and what about how God has created us tells us about this very thing? Discover in this short video on health that we are fearfully and wonderfully made!
1) BY what means is all Scripture given ? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of Cod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. 3 : 16. 2) For what purpose ? “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Verse […]
STUDY 1/2: The Sure Word of Prophecy
1) BY what means is all Scripture given ?
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of Cod, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. 3 : 16.
2) For what purpose ?
“That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works.” Verse 17.
3) To whom do the things revealed from the Scriptures belong ?
“The ‘secret things belong unto the Lord our God ; but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.” Deut. 29 :29.
That is, they belong to the human family.
4) What is the last book of the Bible called ?
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” Rev. I :I.
5) What are many saying about this book even today?
Isa. 29:11-12 “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”
6) What does the Bible say?
Rev. 22:10 “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”
Revelation was given as an unfolding prophecy that is being fulfilled. It was not to be sealed, but to be understood.
7) What is said of those who read or study this book ?
” Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things which are written therein.” Verse 3.
The book of Revelation, then, is not only designed to be understood, but a blessing is
pronounced upon those who read or study it. No one would expect to obtain
a blessing by reading a book he could not understand ; hence the implication
is that he who studies this book may understand it.
8) How were the Old Testament prophecies given ?
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but holy men of God
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Peter 1: 21.
9) What is said of the interpretation of these prophecies ?
” Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation
[impulse].” Verse 20. The Peshito Syriac version renders this verse :
“No prophecy is an exposition of its own text.” The idea conveyed is that
the text in which the prophecy is found, does not explain itself ; but that one
must go to some other statement of the Holy Spirit for an explanation. No
one, unaided (relying on his own private judgment), is competent to give an
exposition of a prophecy. Its meaning should be sought elsewhere in the
word of God, ” comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” i Cor. 2 : 53.
10) When prophecy is to be fulfilled, what does God do?
Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
11) In giving their prophetic utterances; what did the prophets seek ?
” Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls ; of which sal:*
vation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of
the grace that should come unto you.” I Peter i : 9, xo.
12) By whose spirit were they actuated ?
” Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them
did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow.” Verse ii. Then all the prophecies of the Old Testament,
as well as those of the New, were dictated by .the Spirit of Christ,
and are therefore designed to be studied by Christians.
so.
13) How did Peter confirm his former preaching on the coming of
Christ?
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of
his majesty.” 2 Peter i : 16.
14) When did the apostle see the majesty (kingship) of Christ, and
hear the approbative words of God ?
” And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in
the holy mount.” Verse i8.
15) What other and more certain evidence did he have of the power
and coming of Christ ?
” 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 dawh, and the
day star arise in your hearts.” Verse 19.
The apostle assures his readers that you need not fear if you were not an eyewitness of that majesty, as though your soul would be without an anchor upon which to substantiate your faith. Rather he plainly declares you have the word more sure to you than if you saw it with your eyes, because the prophecy that God has given is absolute.
16) At the time when Jerusalem was to be destroyed, to what prophecy
did Christ point his disciples as a guide to their actions ?
” When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand).”
Matt. 24: 55
God does nothing new without revealing what He is doing from His word of prophecy to His servants. In the destruction of Jerusalem, not a single Christian perished because they understood the prophecy Christ gave, and fled to the mountains. Likewise, the same prophecies are given for our day so we might be instructed on how to act accordingly. God does not leave His children in the darkness.
17) When were all the prophecies in the book of Daniel to be understood?
“But thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of
the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” Dan.
12:4
NOTE. —Certainly it is that the study of prophecy should by no means be neglected.
This part of the word belongs to that which is said to be a lamp unto
our feet and a light unto our path. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
God gives his people, through the prophetic word, an opportunity to learn
what is coming on the earth, that they may know how to act when the predictions
shall come to pass. In view of this, whoever is overtaken unawares by
any calamity which the prophecies have pointed out, will be held guilty by
Him who so kindly reveals these things for our benefit.
“There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Baptist
“There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found: Not in the New Testament– absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.” Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’.
“To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years’ discussion with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false [Jewish traditional] glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject.
Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism.” Dr. E. T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister’s Convention, in ‘New York Examiner,’ November 16, 1893
“The Scriptures nowhere call the first day of the week the Sabbath. . .There is no Scriptural authority for so doing, nor of course, any Scriptural obligation.” The Watchman
“There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance.” -WILLIAM OWEN CARVER, ” The Lord’s Day in Our Day,” page 49.
“There is nothing in Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day.” Harold Lindsell (editor), Christianity Today, Nov. 5, 1976
“The sacred name of the Seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10quoted]… on this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages… Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week, — that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh.” Joseph Hudson Taylor, ‘The Sabbatic Question’, p. 14-17, 41.
“The first four commandments set forth man’s obligations directly toward God…. But when we keep the first four commandments, we are likely to keep the other six. . . . The fourth commandment sets forth God’s claim on man’s time and thought…. The six days of labour and the rest on the Sabbath are to be maintained as a witness to God’s toil and rest in the creation. . . . No one of the ten words is of merely racial significance…. The Sabbath was established originally (long before Moses) in no special connection with the Hebrews, but as an institution for all mankind, in commemoration of God’s rest after the six days of creation. It was designed for all the descendants of Adam.”-Adult Quarterly, Southern Baptist Convention series, Aug. 15, 1937.
“And took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . . !” Colossians 2:14 “The words ‘abolish,’ ‘take away,’ ‘destroy,’ and ‘change’ have been so persistently connected with the law by some public teachers that there exists in the minds of many people the honest conviction that all which is expressed […]
The Law in Christ
“And took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . . !”
Colossians 2:14
“The words ‘abolish,’ ‘take away,’ ‘destroy,’ and ‘change’ have been so persistently connected with the law by some public teachers that there exists in the minds of many people the honest conviction that all which is expressed by these words was done to the law by Christ.
It is true that He came to “abolish” something, and to “take away” something, and to “destroy” something, and to “change” something; but it is important that we-should know just what it was that He abolished, and what it was that He took away, and what it was that He destroyed, and what it was that He intended to change by His work in behalf of man. This we can easily learn from the Scriptures.
WHAT WAS ABOLISHED.
It is said of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that He “hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” 2 Tim. 1:10. Death is the result of sin. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
James 1:15. But “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Christ, therefore, came to abolish that which is the result of being out of harmony with the law (which is but the written transcript of the self-sacrificing character of God), and He did it, not by abolishing the law, but by bringing us into harmony with the law.
WHAT WAS TAKEN AWAY.
We read that Christ “was manifested to take away our sins.” 1 John 3:5. He is the sin-bearer, “Who His own self carried up our sins in His body to the tree, that we having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness.” 1 Peter 2:24, R.V., margin. Sin is lawlessness, and Christ was manifested to take away, not the law, but lawless-ness.
Note: In Jeremiah 4:4, the LORD tells us, “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . .” And then in Colossians 2:11-13, this promise is fulfilled in Christ . . . “In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ !”
“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; but the Last Adam was made a quickening (Life-giving) Spirit !” “For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God !”
I Corinthians 15:45 & Romans 6:10
WHAT HE CAME TO DESTROY.
The attitude of Christ toward the law is set forth in the prophecy which says: “He will magnify the law and make it honourable.” Isa. 42:21. In His sermon on the mount, which is itself but the interpretation of the princ-iples contained in the Words spoken from Mount Sinai, Christ said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am, not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matt. 5:17. He “came to explain the relation of the law of God to man, and to illustrate its precepts by His Own example of obedience.” [Desire of Ages (DA), p. 308]
But we are taught that “for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 3:8. The works of the devil are those which are contrary to God’s law. “The devil sinneth from the beginning,” and in every case “sin is the transgression of the law.” I John 3:4-8
Furthermore, Christ came to destroy the devil himself. Satan had introduced into this world rebellion against God and His law, and Christ’s mission and work were to put an end to that rebellion and the instigator of it. In order to do that, He took our flesh, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.” Heb. 2:14.
“For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God . . . !” Romans 6:10
WHAT HE CAME TO CHANGE.
It is a blessed thing to know that a change was wrought by Christ in giving Himself for man. There was certainly need that a change should be made. Men were far from righteousness, “being alienated from the Life of
God through the ignorance that is in them” (Eph. 4:18), “having no hope and without God in the world.” Eph. 2:12. “But God, Who is rich in mercy, … hath quickened us together with Christ, … and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Eph. 2:4-6. And thus “we all … are changed into the same imagefrom glory to glory.” 2 Cor. 3:18.
But more even than a change of character has been provided for us, for “we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.” Phil. 3:20, 21. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.” 1 Cor. 15:51, 52.
Glorious change! A renewed character and a renewed body! This is the fulness of the Salvation provided for us in Jesus Christ. It thus becomes evident from the teaching of the Scriptures that Christ came to abolish, not, the law, but death; to take away, not the law, but our sins; to destroy, not the law, but the devil and his works; to change, not the law, but us. And He did all this “by the sacrifice of Himself !” Heb. 9:26.
”For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, hath made me _______ (your name) free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do (give new life), in that it was weak through the flesh . . . . God sending His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and in exchange for sin, condemned sin in the flesh . . .
That the righteousness of the Law might be filled full in us, who walk not by the flesh, but by the Spirit !”
Romans 8:2-4 & Zechariah 4:6
Undated Armadale Campmeetings, 1895, “The Law in Christ; Or, the Relation Between the Law and the Gospel,”
One of the most pressing issues to arise in the early church was whether the Gentile converts who had come to Christ were to observe the law of circumcision or not. It would also discuss the relation of these newborn followers of Christ who had little-to-no knowledge in regard to the law or it’s precepts. […]
THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM & THE LAW OF MOSES I: A SCRIPTURAL CONTROVERSY
One of the most pressing issues to arise in the early church was whether the Gentile converts who had come to Christ were to observe the law of circumcision or not. It would also discuss the relation of these newborn followers of Christ who had little-to-no knowledge in regard to the law or it’s precepts. In Jerusalem, the birthplace of apostolic Christianity, a council of the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter with the apostle James, bishop of Jerusalem, overseeing the discussions and giving sentence as to the general consensus of the brethren. You can read about this controversy in Acts 15; yet many are reading Acts 15 with an understanding that the church may define what is essential in regards to the law, and declaring it as non-essential for the observance of converts from the Gentiles to Christ. The implications of this are not inconsiderable, but that will not be the purpose of this study (For that study, go to the “I’m a Gentile, not a Jew” article here).
Rather, this study is for the purpose of understanding the early Christian church’a decision as it pertains to understanding the law of God, and whether or not it was decreed as non-essential to be observed. It is not the purpose of this study to arouse further controversy on a sensitive subject, but rather to bring us all into a unity of faith with respect to what Scripture teaches.
To bring out the matter completely, we will examine texts from the Bible, as well as what history said about these councils at Jerusalem. While the Bible is sufficient, historical witnesses supply a secondary testimony, shedding more light on the matter and the controversies erupting in the early church regarding the law of God which were not plainly brought to view directly from the Scripture itself.
Do we uphold the law by keeping the commandments as much of the Bible suggests we should? Or is this council the Achille’s heel to it’s observance? Or perhaps indeed, there is a Greco-Roman Achille’s heel that exists, but it’s in the understanding of those reading their ideas into the Jerusalem council. Scripture and history will bear this out as we bring this controversy back to the table for discussion.
There are two classes of Christians today.
(1) Those who believe they should keep the law of God because they are saved.
(2) Those who don’t keep the law because they believe they are saved, with no necessity of keeping it.
How often has this second class revisited that council in Jerusalem to resort to justifying their identity as Gentiles who need not keep the law of God! So without further delay, let’s look at pulse of the issue: the council itself.
“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
” (Acts 15:1-2)
And what was the issue? It was an issue and question of salvation, and how a man is saved from sin. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” (Acts 15:5-6) Jesus had taught the apostles to teach “whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20), and the Pharisees believed that the law of circumcision was to be kept [to command them to keep THE law- that law- this particular law- of Moses], and if it, that very law of Moses itself, was not kept, those who believed in Christ and were baptized were not truly saved at all. Thus salvation from sin was the fruit of their keeping of a law of Moses, and not of believing in Christ. The great problem that was not being factored in was that it was only believing in Christ’s power to save from sin who would circumcise the heart to love God wholly, as Moses also instructed (Deuteronomy 30:6); this a man could not do of himself for salvation, as it is wholly a work of God on his behalf.
So the matter was considered, and Peter couldn’t accept the charge upon the Gentiles that they were unsaved until they were circumcised because it is “God, which knows the hearts, and He testified, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did to us; And has put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:8-9) Thus, Peter placed his finger upon the pulse of the issue of the Pharisees; an issue that they long struggled with even in the days of Christ; Peter recognized that they were also born of the Spirit of God, by which alone a man can see the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). It was this very instruction that Jesus gave to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, because it was the instruction so greatly lost sight of amongst that class of believers. The circumcision of the flesh was a sign upon the flesh of the newborn, but the circumcision of the heart was the work of the new birth: a work accomplished by the hand of God and not the hand of man.
The Gentiles constituted those who came from other faith traditions, who in part were unfamiliar with the laws, customs, and traditions of the Hebrew people. The Gentile manner of worship, practice, and things which they allowed were often in sharp variance to the precepts outlined in the laws given to Moses; so much so that the Gentiles were called the uncircumcised, being “without Christ” and “without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). It was not uncommon for Gentiles to sacrifice unclean animals (swine, eagles, lions, beasts of prey) to their gods; or else to consume them. Neither was it uncommon for them to practice sexual immorality, drink fermented wine, and in the case of governors, to oppress and persecute those whose ideas came into sharp conflict with their own; all of this was consistent with their beliefs, as it was the example set forth by many of their heathen gods.
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you [the Gentile converts] with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:…(Acts 15:28-29)
The law of circumcision is the portion of the law of Moses which they gave no such commandment as essential to salvation, believing only one circumcision as truly essential was the one performed by the Spirit of Christ. This circumcision that was truly essential was the one which “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ…” (Col. 2:11)
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL & THE LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY
In council of the apostles, James presided over the council to make the final decision based upon the consensus among them. “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
” (Acts 15:19-21)
The decision was what commands the apostles should enjoin to the Gentile converts as they were only beginning to learn of the things contained within the law. More specifically, these commands pertained to the individual believer’s own body. Paul the apostle speaks of fornication as sinning “against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). He further comments on these particular commands, saying: “…ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would incease more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God…that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
“(1 Thes. 4:1-4)
.
The decision pertaining to bodily commands as it pertained to the law came from the highest authority on earth, as the mind of God worked through His people in making a judgment. If the judgment was from God, this decision was always to speak in harmony with the law and testimony of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Yet many have gone to the extreme as to interpret that the church was given the authority to abrogate God’s law when they are minded together to do so. This sentence issued by James however was not to loose the obligation regarding what was not in those four commands. Those four commands were actually found in the law of Moses itself, thus showing the basis of their decision was guided by the law, so as to not overthrow it, but to maintain gospel order and soundness in their conclusion. It was the apostle’s judgment not to trouble the Gentiles who were coming to God, as overburdening them with more than they could bear. The reason is given, “For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him…”; or to put it simply, “They will learn to rest in time. Let the Sabbath reading of the law be a time for them to learn more.”
The Gentiles who came to the synagogues to learn of the God of the Hebrews had already been attending the assemblies every Sabbath day, as it was written: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
” (Acts 13:42) The fact that the Gentiles were keeping the Sabbath after they were converted to Christ meant that the four laws were not meant to abbrogate the whole law of Moses, especially the Sabbath observance, but only to specify that the outward observances of the law, such as circumcision and tassle-wearing were not enjoined to the Gentiles; and that the rest of their duties in the keeping of the law would be unfolded as they learned more of the principles of the law of God.
The Sabbath was especially regarded by the Gentile converts in the early church just as it was prophesied would happen in Isaiah: “Also the sons of the heathen (Gentiles), that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants, every one that keeps the sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of my covenant;
…for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. ” (Isaiah 56:6-8)
That the Gentiles who converted were expected to become established in the law, and not to disregard it a consistent principle laid out in the Scriptures (Rev. 14:12, Rev. 22:14, Rom. 7:7). The apostle Paul says that those who have the law of God, yet break it are actually teaching the Gentiles to blaspheme Him by their example.
“Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast of God…An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who has the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
You therefore which teach another, do you not teach yourself? You that preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You that say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege? You that make your boast of the law, do you, through breaking the law, dishonour God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you…”
(Rom 2:20-24)
The apostle says that to break the law is in fact dishonoring God, while giving a bad example to the Gentile converts whom they are entrusted to teach. The elder is entrusted to teach the younger the way of life.
The fact that God would allow the Gentiles to come to the law of God, and give them His Spirit, while having time to learn His law is exactly as the parable of the prodigal son. The Gentiles lost sight of the law of God, having gone astray because of their fathers who left the way of the God of Noah. Yet they were to return, and God, as a Father to them, was to meet them a great way off, and provoke the other brother to jealousy who had never left the law of God but had no love in his heart for his repentant brother (Luke 15:20, 1 John 4:20, Deut. 32:21, Rom. 11:11).
***For the second witness, the Historical Account of the Council of Jerusalem and the Law of Moses, and to understand the controversy that erupted in the second century, causing the council to depart from the law of Moses entirely, click here.
The devil had his origin as “the covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), who dwelt “in the midst of the stones of fire.” The covering Cherub’s name was Lucifer, which means “A Bearer of the Light”. These cherubs occupied a high position in heaven at the very throne of the Most High God, in “the true tabernacle, […]
The Church & Antichrist
The devil had his origin as “the covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), who dwelt “in the midst of the stones of fire.” The covering Cherub’s name was Lucifer, which means “A Bearer of the Light”. These cherubs occupied a high position in heaven at the very throne of the Most High God, in “the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Hebrews 8:2) Moses was instructed to make a pattern of this tabernacle, where golden cherubim were made to dwell in the most sacred place of the Sanctuary. The angels were always known as “spirits” and “flames of fire” (Hebrews 1:7), and God’s Sanctuary has always been the church of all the heavenly host: where He sits enthroned, and where His government reigns supreme. His law was placed as the foundation of the throne in the Sanctuary upon the earth, and that very same law was the foundation of His throne in the heavenly assembly, which assembly we are part of:
“ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”
(Heb 12:22-24)
THE LIVING STONES OF THE CHURCH
The church we are part of is the very church that the “innumerable company of angels” are part of, and that includes the cherubim. In this church, we are called “lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”
(1Pe 2:5) We are to be living stones, building up the temple of heaven. That fallen cherub was no exception, being a “flame of fire”, walking in the midst of those “stones of fire”, the angels were, and as many as are faithful and obedient to God, still remain as part of the church of God in heaven.
So what happened that Lucifer should no longer be part of that church? He began to exalt himself to equality with God. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
(Isa 14:12-14)
Lucifer, the created angel, who was part of the “church of the firstborn”, was desiring to exalt himself to equality with God, and to receive worship that was due to God and Christ alone. Yet the Scripture tells us that this honor was never given to any angels:
“Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
(Heb 1:4-6)
The angels never received the divine inheritance of worship that the Firstbegotten, the Son of God, inherited from the Father. Christ was the foundation of the throne of God, upon His shoulders the entire government and church of heaven was firmly established. So firmly fixed was this foundation, that the “church of the firstborn” is the very church Christ declared to be founded upon Himself in Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” For Christ declared in return, “upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:16,18) This honor was not ascribed to any angel to be the foundation of the church, which is built upon the Son of God, but both redeemed man and created angels were made from this Rock, which is Christ, as living stones. This is why Christ gave the acclamation to Peter’s confession by the Spirit of God, saying “You are Peter (a stone)”. The Scripture tells that this confession alone is what the true church is, and ever will be, and Christ’s confession in return is to be what all of God’s people always are in Him, the Rock of salvation. The Scripture says that we “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” (Eph 2:20-22) Christ, the firstborn and chief cornerstone of the church, is declared to be the Rock “which you are hewn (carved out) from” (Isaiah 51:1), which “has begotten you” (Deut. 32:18). This church is the only church which the gates of hell will not prevail against, yet of Lucifer it is said at his fall, “thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:15) It is fundamental to our understanding then that Christ is the Son of God.
THE FATHER OF LIARS
God is the Father of Christ, the Son. This testimony speaks true. John, the apostle, declared Christ to be “the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 1:3). Yet of the devil, Christ declares that he, in John 8:44, “…abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
Thus did Lucifer, who desired the worship that was given by God to Christ alone, fall from the very church of heaven, and so necessarily saw the gates of hell prevail against him, and why is this so? Because he refused to believe that Christ alone is the only equal with the living God, “as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name” than any angel. Satan, in exalting himself to equality with God, was not abiding in the truth of the Son of God. He was declared to be “a lair”, adding to the Word of God something that God had not declared.
The Scripture tells us that, “…he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son” (1 John 5:10). Satan had done exactly this. In exalting himself to equality with God, Satan brazenly declared that he did not believe the record God gave of Christ, His beloved Son, and by this means, had added to the Word of God and by this means he fell from heaven.
“Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? Every word of God is pure…Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:4-6).
God created all things by His Word, and Lucifer was now adding to the creation something that was not so from the beginning, and in doing so, he proved himself to be a liar. Thus he declared God to be a liar while in heaven, in not believing the record He gave of His Son. The most startling implications, not then discerned by the rebellious cherub, was the result of Lucifer seeking to exalt himself in his heart. Thus it was that another church was founded which disregarded Christ and which Satan was to be king of. That church is nothing less than the beginning of antichrist, and the stones of fire which composed the church of God were now fallen, and part of the “synagogue of Satan”, which rendered allegiance to the lies of Satan above the Word of God. Every church that is not in intimate connection with the Spirit of Christ, the Son of the living God, is a church of antichrist.
1 John 2:22-23 point this out: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
Thus, it was that Satan denied the Son of God. There is an abundance of Scriptural testimony regarding that old serpent, the father of lies, that declare that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against him, and that he has continued this warfare against the creation of God. He continues to this day to declare that God is a liar, and perverts His Word to win souls to his rebellion.
“…Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:1-5).
Christ said, “When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own.” While dishonesty and jealousy are exclusively the qualities of the devil, he imposed them upon the Father of truth, thus the prevalence of the gates of hell over one who denies the Son of the living God. Satan has ever won his converts over through subtle deceptions that overthrow God’s authority. As it was then, even so it is now.
THE CHURCH OF ANTICHRIST
Satan’s church has always used lies at it’s foundation, and the growth of his church has always been aimed at the living stones to establish them in his own building. He seeks to incite rebellion through deception, which is what he did to the angels of heaven, Adam & Eve, the worship of false gods amongst God’s professed people. In fact, in speaking of his fall, it refers to Lucifer as “the King of Babylon” (Isaiah 14:3), that is, a heathen nation that is foreign to the nation that is symbolic for God’s remnant church, “the heavenly Jerusalem”. Babylon was known for it’s worship of false gods, and when God’s people became entangled in their worship, it was evidence that Satan had found his way into Jerusalem, and for this cause, they went into captivity under the nation whose gods they served. “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.” (Lam. 4:12)
Satan artfully conceals himself under the guise of the worship of false gods. When Israel departed from the living God to worship Satan, though they professed to be Israel, they ceased to truly be Israel, or have any right to the blessings that Israel were to receive. “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these…Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.” (Jer. 7:4-11) The living God denounces those who profess to say they are the people of God, declaring they are delivered, and that they are called by the name of the only true God, and then show by their works that they are not at all the people of Jehovah, but of Baalzebub (Satan), the “king of Babylon”, and though they professed to believe the truth, underneath this profession was a manifestation of all that antichrist is and has always been.
The church was in the days of the Babylonian captivity referred to as a woman: “I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman.” (Jer. 6:2) And in prophecy, the last day antichrist church is referred to as a woman, and no less as “Babylon”.
“Come here; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore…with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication…And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Rev 17:4-5)
Satan is the king of this church, and through her, he receives worship. More than this, she is in intimate connection with the kings of the earth, thus Satan, through her, enforces his false system of worship by a church/state union. She is arrayed with precious stones and pearls, but these pearls and stones are to belong to the church of God, but instead adorn the church of antichrist.
Moreover, she is referred to as a whore, because of the false worship associated with her, just as it was with Israel in the days of their apostasy: “Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.” (Jer. 3:3) A whore is one who commits fornication against the true God, and has “a whore’s forehead”; therefore the nature of the god she worships is written upon her head, and is no less than Babylonian Satan worship in nature.
ANTICHRIST DEPARTURE FROM FAITH
This development of antichrist began in heaven, and continued with the concealed deceptions of Satan until it even began to find a foothold in the apostolic era of the Christian church. The apostle John, speaking of this, said:
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
(1Jn 2:18-19)
The apostle’s words were echoing the same voice that was spoken two millennia before, when Moses wrote: “Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;” (Deu. 13:13) A key characteristic that the apostle styled as “antichrist” was “not continuing” in the faith, by going to “serve other gods, which ye have not known.” John seeing this, declared further: “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1Jn 2:21-22) John shows how the very denial of truth that happened in heaven was happening amongst professed followers of Christ in his day, and for this cause John admonished the children of the truth to abide in the truth, that they “shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” (1 Jn 2:24) Two churches both professing to be the Israel of God were developing. One of the most startling revelations regarding antichrist which Satan set up was to “sit in the temple of God;” when the only seat in the temple of God is the throne of God, which is the place of His worship and the seat of His government, where His law is contained. Thus Satan would have one arise in the church to assume prerogatives that did not belong to him.
THE WHORE’S FOREHEAD
This culminated into Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. Being a whore, upon her forehead was written the name of her god: “Mystery” with whom Satan was mysteriously concealing himself to receive worship in her. This was “serving other gods, which ye have not known.” And for this cause, she persecutes the saints of God. Jesus said “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” (John 16:2-3) Thus we see those who are true to God, and know Him and are founded upon fundamental knowledge of the Son of God, and those who do not know the Father or His Son, but think they are serving God, when in fact they are serving the god which they know not under the false guise of worshipping God. This woman, involved in church and state union enforced upon the saints this mystery worship. “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus…” (Revelation 17:6) She not only enforced her worship of her mystery god, but moreover, enforced the falsehoods that were framed by a departure from the words of the true God, and like Eve, became a catalyst for promoting the deceptive sentiments of Satan.
Who is this church? She must necessarily meet all of these characteristics:
1) She worships a mystery god.
2) She enforces the worship of that mystery god.
3) She does so by means of a church/state union.
4) She makes war with the Son of God through making war with his church.
5) The mystery god must necessarily have Satan concealed in it’s worship: adding to or removing from the Word of God.
What is the church that identifies the characteristic marks of the antichrist church which wars against the church of the firstborn? It can be nothing less than the Catholic church.
SHE WORSHIPS A MYSTERY GOD
“The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church…” Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p. 11
“The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself…his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.” Cathechism of the Catholic church, ch. 1:234,237
This is evidence that the God of Israel was said to have been a mystery god, which “ye have not known”.
SHE ENFORCES THE WORSHIP OF THAT MYSTERY GOD
Speaking of the church that enforces the worship of it’s god by the state, the Scripture says: “in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many…” (Dan. 11:38-39)
The Catholic emperor Justinian made a decree enforceable to subject all men to the worship of the Trinity and to worship under the Catholic system:
Pope Francis addresses the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly- the largest assembly of nations ever gathered.
“CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM…
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven…
Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.”
SHE DOES SO BY MEANS OF A CHURCH STATE UNION
It should suffice that Satan has used the papacy, under which influence the kings of the earth are employed to enforce the Babylonian religion upon the world.
Consider the idea presented in 1965 from the Pope in his encyclical, Gaudium et spes:
“The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods (§76).”
There is no suggestion here that the Church’s renunciation of her rights in regard to the state is the ideal, only that sometimes this move might be prudent in order to establish her credibility. Flowing in the same vein of thinking, but more direct in it’s tone, it shows another of the highest legally binding document of the Catholic church (the encyclical) AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES:
“We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself…Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens…. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages – above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles – and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defence, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.”
Again, it says that the church that for many years exercised the authority over the state to persecute God’s church is tolerant where she does not have the influence over the state. It was stated by Pope Francis that the orderly development of “a civil, pluralistic society requires” that the “authentic spirit of religion” not be “confined” to “personal conscience but that its significant role in the construction of society is recognized,” in his remarks to the Italian president. “On the other hand, public authorities—who are primarily expected to create the conditions for a just and sustainable development, so that civil society can develop all its potentialities—can find a valuable and useful support for their action in the commitment and loyal collaboration of the Church.”
SHE MAKES WAR WITH THE SON OF GOD THROUGH MAKING WAR WITH HIS CHURCH
That the Catholic church persecuted other professing Christians by means of the state simply because they would not adhere to their form of doctrine and manner of worship is abundantly testified to throughout history and even at times through the confession of the Catholic church itself in places where she has little to no influence over matters of state.
THE MYSTERY GOD MUST NECESSARILY HAVE SATAN CONCEALED IN IT’S WORSHIP: ADDING TO OR REMOVING FROM THE WORD OF GOD
Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to worship a Trinity. We have only a command to worship God the Father, and that His Son, by His divine inheritance, is to also receive worship. Satan knows this, and has sought for many centuries to secure worship for himself, yet was never permitted to have this in the church of heaven. He idealized the concept in his heart of the Trinity: he disregarded the special prerogative belonging to Christ alone as the Son of God in truth who is entitled to worship, thus removing from the Word of God, and he placed himself in equality with God, to receive worship and added to God’s Word, declaring Him to be a liar. The Trinity presented three divine beings under the worship of one God, yet Scripture never sanctions the worship of three, but one God, and a fundamental part of that worship is honoring and giving worship to His only-begotten Son. Never in Scripture is there a place where we must worship the Spirit of God & Christ, but only to worship God and Christ from which we receive that Spirit. In the Trinity, the worship of the Holy Spirit is a concept idealized in the heart of Satan to be enthroned upon the hearts of men, securing worship from them through his subtlety. Instead of being the angel that is “a ministering spirit”, he flatters himself to be “the holy spirit”, giving himself a name and honor above what God had bestowed upon the angels.
Simply because he conceals himself as this, does not by any means imply that the Holy Spirit does not exist, but rather that the Holy Spirit is not a third divine being to be honored, exalted, worshipped with the Father and His Son. Rather the Spirit of God is their agency whereby they may be everywhere present, teaching, admonishing, guiding, and enlivening the children of God.
IN CONCLUSION
It may be plainly seen that the church of God has always been built up of His faithful children as “a spiritual house”, a “habitation of God through the Spirit”, and that the church of antichrist, the false systems of worship that departs from the worship of the true God and Christ, has a “house that is left desolate” (Matthew 23:37-38) because of the “overspreading of abominations” (Daniel 9::27, Matthew 24:15), being devoid of the Spirit of Christ. These are two opposing forces that have run parallel since the fall of Lucifer in heaven, and that the same measures which caused him to fall are brought to bear by him against God’s church in every age since that time.
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Gal. 4:28-30)
“During this indefinite time a considerable amount of a sort of theokrasia seems to have gone on between the Christian cult and the almost equally popular and widely diffused Mithraic cult, and the cult of Serapis-Isis-Horus. From the former it would seem the Christians adopted Sunday as their chief day of worship in- stead of […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Historical
“During this indefinite time a considerable amount of a sort of theokrasia seems to have gone on between the Christian cult and the almost equally popular and widely diffused Mithraic cult, and the cult of Serapis-Isis-Horus. From the former it would seem the Christians adopted Sunday as their chief day of worship in- stead of the Jewish Sabbath.” H. G. WELLS, “The Outline of History” (New and Revised), page 543.
“The first who ever used it [the Sabbath to denote the Lord’s day (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus-he lived about the time that Repurtus did (which was the beginning of the twelfth century)-who calls the Lord’s day by the name of Christian Sabbath.” PETER HEYLYN, “History of the Sabbath,” Part 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 12.
“Bear in mind that the substitution [of the first for the seventh day] was not a coerced happening; it could not be a sudden, but only a very slow development, probably never anticipated, never even designed or put into shape by those chiefly interested, but creeping almost unconsciously into being.” WILLIAM B. DANA, “A Day of Rest and Worship,” page 174.
The first direct reference to Sunday as a day of rest from physical toil we find in Tertullian, in about A.D. 200 in his Liber de Oratione, chapter 23. “We, however ( just as we have received ), only on the day of the Lord’s resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil.” TERTULLIAN, “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. 111, page 689.
“The early Christians had at first adopted the Jewish seven- day week with its numbered week days, but by the close of the third century A.D. this began to give way to the planetary week; and in the fourth and fifth centuries the pagan designations became generally accepted in the western half of Christendom. The use of the planetary names by Christians attests the growing influence of astrological speculations introduced by converts from paganism. … During these same centuries the spread of Oriental solar worships, especially that of Mithra (Persian sun worship) in the Roman world, had already led to the substitution by pagans of dies Solis for dies Saturni, as the first day of the planetary week…. Thus gradually a pagan institution was ingrafted on Christianity.” HUTTON WEBSTER, Ph.D., Rest Days, pages 220, 221.
Eusebius, fourth-century bishop and friend of the wicked Emperor Constantine, whose Sunday law is the first on record, flatly says: “All things, whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day [as they had begun to call Sunday].” –“Commentary on the Psalms.”
“Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early, indeed, into the place of the Sabbath…. The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps, at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.” AUGUSTUS NEANDER, General history of the Christian Religion and Church” (Rose’s translation), Vol. 1, page 186.
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was […]
Eternally Protestant: Religious Liberty Renounced
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”
(Revelation 13:11-12)
There are two beasts depicted in Bible prophecy; the first an the second. The first is Papal and the second is Protestant. The first is European and the second is American. The first is called the beast, and the second called the image of the beast. Prophecy tells us that America shall follow in the steps of Old Europe; that the Papal exercise of authority over men’s consciences in that land shall be exercised by the Protestant churches in America. Yet for Protestantism to come to the place where Papalism has been, and to exercise all the power that was seen in the dark ages, Protestantism must become something other than what it ever was. What does it mean to renounce the protest, and say that Protestantism is over? It is a fearful thing to renounce the protest against the Roman Catholic system; it means more than most realize, and takes in more than most think. We will look at the history of Protestantism, and examine the principles, and the startling and dreadful consequences of renouncing it.
THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM/PROTESTANTISM
It was under the oppressive reign of the Papacy, the apostate church of Bible prophecy, that religious liberty took a foothold in the hearts of the people. The Papacy began it’s dirge against freedom of conscience first when it began to rise to power and prominence amongst the emperors of Europe. It enforced homage to the fallen church, to violate the Sabbath commandment while resting upon “the venerable day of the sun”, and to disregard His statutes, while bowing to “the most holy Trinity” as the supreme three-in-one god who, according to the Catholic church teachings, placed the Popes in a position of authority over the consciences of men. They had interpreted that it was given to Peter to bind things in heaven a
The keys were said to be the keys to heaven, earth, and consciences of men; hence the triple crown of authority.
nd earth, which included their consciences. The Bible was veiled in mystery, being inaccessible to the common people due to it’s latin vernacular. It was understood that the priests who related what was in the Bible were to be it’s authorities and the only true expositors of Scripture. This reliance upon man for the Word of God left a veil upon the hearts of men, and kept them in darkness.
God would raise up reformers, who would be employed to work great reformations in their communities and beyond; this kept the light of Bible from becoming wholly exstinguished from the land, but it was largely fulfilled what was spoken of in the Scripture:
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.” (Amos 8:11-13)
The church that was in Rome was given much counsel, to keep their feet from turning into the way of apostasy, declaring that “the gospel of Christ” was “the power of God unto salvation,” and that the “just shall live by faith”; but the counsel gradually was lost sight of, the power of the gospel was exchanged for the power of the state; faith in God’s Word was a concept that was strange and dark, and all men, whether they had faith or not, were expected to yield themselves to the Roman church’s allegiance, or be threatened with death. Yet it was under one reformer that the entreaties to the church in Rome were finally heeded. The dark mind of one Roman church priest, Martin Luther, tormented deeply, there was a longing for a power higher than himself to assure salvation. In his studies of the Scripture, the words of Paul to the church of Rome were as the light which leads to everlasting day, “The just shall live by faith…”. From that light alone, he began to see a number of matters proving the Roman church to be a system counteracting living faith, and protested the current doctrine form of salvation. The word spread like fire in the dry brush; the hearts of people burned within them to catch a glimpse of the gospel. The power of the apostate church was broken, of whom it was said “All the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8) The apostate church was said to be that rise of the “mystery of iniquity” which takes away the power of godliness; the principles of the Roman church were, and still are, after the world, and not Christ.
Luther maintained his conscience bound to be true to the Highest Authority of heaven.
Martin Luther’s death warrant was nearly secured. An diet was held at Worms, in Germany, to have Martin Luther renounce his works which contradicted the present positions of the Catholic church. Yet Luther, having tasted the gospel’s power, and seen a glimpse of it’s beauty, responded the word which ignited the flames of religious liberty that would not so soon be extinguished: “Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” Upon his return from the diet at Worms to Wittenburg, the edict of Worms was issued. It stated:
“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”
The death sentence and assassination attempts against him failed; he was anointed by God to do a work, that “if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it” (Acts 5:39). This excommunication of Luther was revealed to a German prince, Frederick of Saxony, who had received communicated via divine revelation of the work of Luther, and subsequently, he extended measures to protect him; hiding him for a considerable amount of time in Wartburg [Literally translated, “Watchman mountain”] Castle. It was there that Luther began to translate the Bible into a common language that could be understood by all; that of German. The Bible thus being translated, it was delivered to the princes of Germany. The power of Popery was broken in their hearts as they read the Scriptures; a power which was heaven-ordained bound their souls closely to God; the “mystery of godliness” in Christ Jesus had once more broken the separating power of the mystery of iniquity.
The power of the gospel through this protest grew large; it’s influence was felt everywhere. Yet Luther was not, of himself, the basis of what the word “Protestant” means; it was rather a declaration of a God-fearing conscience, which would honor their conviction to duty above the decrees of mortal men if they should be demanded to make a decision. The diet of Speyer was convened to seek bringing the influences of Protestantism and Catholicism to a negotiation; the princes convinced the diet that a definite decision should not be made until a general council was held, and it was said that “every State shall so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Majesty.” This was liberally interpreted to mean religious liberty; and the doors were opened further for advancement of the gospel. Yet less than three years later, it was repealed, and the Pope and the Emperor were demanding submission to it’s church/state authority. The princes were convened at another diet, and stood firmly against the demand, arguing conscience, and contending for religious liberty.
Here is that:
“Dear Lords, Cousins, Uncles, and Friends! Having repaired to this diet at the summons of his majesty, and for the common good of the empire and of Christendom, we have heard and learnt that the decision of the last diet concerning our holy Christian faith are to be repealed, and that it is proposed to substitute for them certain restrictive and onerous resolutions.
King Ferdinand and the other imperial commissaries, by affixing their seals to the last Recess of Spires, had promised, however, in the name of the emperor, to carry out sincerely and inviolably all that it contained, and to permit nothing that was contrary to it. In like manner, also, you and we, electors, princes, prelates, lords, and deputies of the empire, bound ourselves to maintain always and with our whole might every article of that decree. We cannot therefore consent to its repeal:… because it concerns the glory of God and the salvation of our souls, and that in such matters we ought to have regard, above all, to the commandment of God, who is King of kings and Lord of lords; each of us rendering him account for himself, without caring the least in the world about majority or minority.
We form no judgment on that which concerns you, most dear lords; and we are content to pray God daily that he will bring us all to unity of faith, in truth, charity, and holiness through Jesus Christ, our throne of grace and our only mediator. But in what concerns ourselves, adhesion to your resolution (and let every honest man be judge!) would be acting against our conscience, condemning a doctrine that we maintain to be christian, and pronouncing that it ought to be abolished in our states, if we could do so without trouble. This would be to deny our Lord Jesus Christ, to reject his holy Word, and thus give him just reason to deny us in turn before his Father, as he had threatened….For these reasons, most dear lords, uncles, cousins, and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we Protest by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in any thing that is contrary to God, to his holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires…”
The word protestant, and the protest began because of the protest of Luther, but it was enlarged, and proven successful that religious liberty was from the protest of the German princes, by which the name Protestant came. Therefore, it enlarges it’s span to far beyond Luther. It upholds the freedom of conscience to worship God freely, independent of the condemnation of man to intervene where it is not to intrude. To so intrude into such a sacred place, would be as the serpent intruding upon Adam and Eve, to come between either of them and their God; whether through subtle deception or force, the principle is the same. The protest takes in all who would honor the right to the individual’s accountability to God, above the state, and that the state is not to act as that old serpent into matters where it does not belong. Therefore, the giving of the gospel to set aright erring man placed enmity between the serpent and Eve; and Eve was to, in obedience to the gospel, honor the Creator above the creature, and not the creature above the Creator.
Thus, freedom of choice was always given to mankind by God to make the choice they wanted; yet nothing was to interpose itself between the subjects of heaven and their God; likewise, the gospel maintained it’s claims upon an individual’s soul to be subject to God’s authority first, and any authority of the creature, whether in heaven or earth, second, so long as it that secondary authority did not seek to usurp the homage given to God.
These claims are found in the words of the gospel:
“And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”
(Genesis 3:15)
It doesn’t matter how Satan does it, by deception or force, he interposes himself between the soul and God, as though he had authority to do so…
Christ, in the garden first gave the gospel of His suffering, and declared His power to separate the soul’s influence from the one who had usurped the place of God: specifically the serpent. Thus Christ was kindling the reformation in the heart of man by the gospel. He is the Firestarter of Protestantism; protesting the right of the serpent (the authority of a creature) to place himself between God and man; the Papacy, believing itself to have prerogative over the conscience, did exactly this; and it will again according to the prophecy:
“And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas [the people] and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” (Daniel 11:45)
Protestantism is therefore an eternal principle of the claims of God upon the soul; in heaven among the angels when Lucifer was rebelling, it was the angels. This scene is described in the war in heaven; and is further related in the Story of Redemption, p.16, “Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty, rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Lucifer that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which He had conferred upon His Son.”
Eve sought to reveal this principle when she explained her reason for obeying the express command of God not to eat from the tree; and the gospel that makes men free and obedient children of God are to show their love to their Creator above husband, wife, mother, father, or child (Luke 14:26).
That divine principle of loving God above all, and honoring His authority (keeping His commandments) was simply reignited with the giving of the gospel in the hearts of Luther, and the German princes, but it cannot be renounced so long as time endures, and the true gospel abides in the heart.
THE UNITED STATES ADOPTS THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTESTANTISM
It was this protestant principle upon which the United States was built. It’s Constitution guaranteed freedom of conscience, as declared in the first amendment, and guarded by the fourteenth amendment.
The 1st declares:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
The 14th declares:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Justices of the court have determined that protection of conscience and right to worship is protected under the first amendment, and that are “immunities of citizens of the United States.” For easy reference, I will cite two such examples:
Justice Owen Roberts, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) stated that: “The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act.”
Justice John Paul Steves, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) stated that: “The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress’ power to interfere with the individual’s freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States’ power to legislate. The individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”
The United States was built upon the principles of conscience, and this is clear. The intent of securing conscience from the Papal beast’s enforced worship, and usurping the prerogative of the heart, which is to render due submission to God above fallen man’s erring opinions, was clear. George Washington in 1789, in a letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, said so:
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
Church and State in this present earth are made to be separate. Where heaven isn’t, the church isn’t.
Founding father John Adams said in a letter four years before the Constitution was worked out, the intent of having it: “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.” Letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
Another drafter of the Constitution and an early supreme court justice, Oliver Ellsworth, said the following: “In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.”
RENOUNCING THE PROTEST
What, then, does it mean then to renounce the protest? It means much every way. It means the end of liberty of conscience, of individual accountability of the soul to the claims of God. It justifies the act of Lucifer to interpose itself, and condemns the act of the angels. It justifies the Papal
claims of authority, and condemns Luther & the protestant princes. It overturns strict obedience to the Word of God above the word of mere men or devils; that nothing can be said against wickedness but that it should suffer denunciations, threats, and persecution. To summarize, it means an end to the gospel, which is a revelation of God’s authority, power, righteousness, mercy, love, and will. An end to the gospel in the hearts of those who proclaim such a message; an end to the freedom to proclaim that gospel; an end to those lives that obey the gospel.
In January 2014, an Anglican bishop by the name of Tony Palmer proclaimed a message which will do that very thing. Palmer delivered a special message at the Charismatic Evangelical Leadership Conference hosted by prominent prosperity Evangelist and Pentecostal leader Kenneth Copeland. Before the message, Copeland announced, “You’re going to talk about tonight for a looooong time!” and introduced Palmer to the stage. He was an ecumenical bridgebuilder amongst Catholic and Protestant churches seeking to unite them in common cause and faith, making an end of the separation that exists between them; and was closely aligned to the Charismatic Pentecostal movement, and also a friend of Pope Francis. America in Bible prophecy is represented as having lamblike power in it’s two horns: the Constitution (Republic) and the Declaration of Independence (Protestant). Yet it would betray those warm qualities and “speak as a dragon”. A fitting description of the lamblike profession of a Christian who advocates things contrary to the principles of Christianity; in this case, Protestantism.
To make an end of the separation that exists between the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church means a separation from God, and an approval (or at least justifiable tolerance) of those things for which the Papacy believes. One of the chief beliefs of the Papacy is the doctrine of temporal power; which means that the kingdom of God was established on the earth when Christ resurrected, and the throne was given for Peter and his successors to occupy; thus the Pope has authority over the kings of this world. Instead of the church of Rome affirming Christ’s words, “My Kingdom is not of this world…”, she rather takes the offer of one who usurped the authority of this world by deception, and sought to have Jesus accept the throne of this world as His own.
Where Christ overcame, Rome failed. That interposition of Satan was manifested in the Papacy exercising earthly power of politics and exerting force, instead of the heavenly power of true conversion of the heart and freely surrendering the heart to a God of love; it wielded the sword of the kings of the earth, rather than the Sword of God’s Spirit, which is the Word of God. Thus, it was against the Spirit of Protestantism, where the conscience is captive to God and not men, and demonstrates religious liberty always. Can any advocate making an end to the separation, or to join themselves to such a church, without also saying the protest of honoring the Creator above the creature is over? To repudiate the protest is to repudiate the principles upon which the protest was made.
Palmer, coming with just such a message. At the Charismatic conference, where frequently another spirit manifests itself under the speaking of obscure and vain babblings, he declared exactly what the lamblike beast’s profession is. The lamblike beast “does great miracles, so that he makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceives them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast.” The miracles are performed in the sight of the Papacy; the counterfeit miracle-working Christian movement is definitely Pentecostalism, and fire coming down from heaven was the very judgment that fell upon those who knew Elijah’s identity as a man of God. Thus, these false prophets deceive and make claims to be Elijah, and to call down fire on anyone who opposes that claim. Tony Palmer came to that conference declaring this as his very identity. “I come to you, at this years minister conference in the Spirit and power of Elijah. If you look closely, the work of Elijah was to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers, to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord.”
Surely all would agree, such a claim demands the attention of the people. What was it that Palmer came to declare? He came to declare that children of the protestant movement were to be reunited with the Papal fathers. He declared: “the protest is over…”, citing the “diabolic” [literally devilish in Latin] division caused by Luther in dividing the Catholic church, leading to many other churches, as the source of controversy. Contradicting himself, he agreed on Luther’s argument that salvation was by faith; while it was the Catholic church that demanded Luther renounce the protest (thus stifle the Spirit of the gospel kindled in his heart), or else be disfellowshipped, leaving no choice but for more churches to arise as they studied the Bible diligently for the light shining brightly in the deep Papal darkness.
The Lutheran World Federation in 1999 signed a document with the Catholic church agreeing on the doctrine of justification by faith; thus Palmer declared triumphantly, “there is no more protest… brothers and sisters, Luther’s protest is over. Is yours?… if there is no more protest, how can there be a Protestant church? Maybe we are all Catholics again…” The argument Palmer employed was to set aside the differences that they held, and to agree to be united in Jesus regardless of truth; yet unlike Elijah, there is no call to repent of the apostasy and Baal-worship that Israel had partaken of, but rather a call to repent from those who took their stand for the gospel, and be joined with the ones worshipping Baalim.
This was the fearful counterfeit of the Elijah message he proclaimed. He was also an ambassador to the Charismatics “in the sight of the beast”, delivering a video message from Pope Francis addressed to the leaders representing hundreds of thousands of Charismatic Evangelicals. What he did was but a vessel for the events that would follow. His message would not end at himself, but would send waves throughout the professedly Protestant world and accomplish a counterfeit revival and reconciliation to “the fathers” of the church of Rome, and be proclaimed by many Charismatic leaders, and from them, to the all the denominational churches, who subsequently would come into full communion with the Roman Catholic Papacy. By this announcement, the harlot woman of Revelation 17, drunk with fornication and the blood of the saints by reason of her doctrinal corruption and presumption of the right to exercise state power, was now to reconcile with her daughters. How significant can one message be! As a result, Kenneth Copeland, one of the leading Charismatic leaders of his movement, recorded with the help of Tony Palmer a message to be relayed back to Pope Francis. In it, he said “My dear sir…we believe God with you… all of these leaders each represent literally tens of thousands of people…”. Copeland summarizing the message to the leadership conference, declared: ” “Heaven is thrilled over this…You know what is so thrilling to me? When we went into the ministry 47 years ago, this was impossible.”
To renounce the protest is the justify the evils that formerly existed. It is to revive the intolerance of the Papacy; it is to unite the Protestants to her deeds; it is to renounce the liberties of the United States; as it is written, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.” (1 Cor. 6:15) Yet, these churches have taken the members of the church, and sold them into the hand of her harlotry, to drink the communion cup of her wickedness; to partake of her deeds.
Not long after, on June 24th, 2014, a meeting was arranged by Palmer with the Pope. Someone of the largest representative officials of the Evangelical and Charismatic movement were in attendance. The seven men represented over 800,000,000 professed Christians from all denominations of the world, including Seventh-day Adventists who are part of the World Evangelical Alliance. Including Catholics, the total people represented amongst 8 individuals was 2,000,000,000 people.
It consisted of 7 prominent Evangelical leaders attending the Vatican to grab ahold of the paganized Christ of the Papacy; “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:1-4) than the Jesus of the Bible. Thus fulfilling the verse: “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread (doctrine), and wear our own apparel (churches): only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isaiah 4:1) To the true Jesus, this would be taking His name upon themselves in a vain profession; He cannot accept into the courts of heaven any who do not have His righteousness upon them, and have not partaken of His bread of consecration, which is the truth from heaven. These women are symbolic of representative churches, seven being a perfect number, seeking to request Jesus to do exactly this. Yet it is only another Jesus which could accept such a claim; a counterfeit Spirit of Elijah leading to a counterfeit Christ, that destroys religious freedom, and does want the kingdom of this world. This Jesus is nothing less than that old serpent that deceived Eve. Even so, these women are deceived, and take hold of the Jesus of the Papacy.
The representative men were Kenneth Copeland, James Robison, John Arnott, the three leading men of the World Evangelical Alliance, Geoff Tunnicliffe, Thomas Schirrmacher, and Brian Stiller, as well as Tony Palmer. It was a three-hour meeting, 6 times longer than the typical meeting with the Pope, stressing how much value the current Pope placed on this event. All these were present to pave the way for presenting the message that the protest was over, and that reconciliation to visible unity of their faith could begin to take place.
THE WINDS OF CHANGE
Tony Palmer called the division of Luther “spiritual racism”, which Copeland affirmed, and said the answer is to “abolish the law that empowers it.” If they realized that the law is liberty of conscience, if they realized it was the law of the Constitution of the United States, would their sentiments be different? It was only several weeks after this meeting that two interviews with him took place. One from James Robison’s son, who asked Palmer’s thoughts on the Papacy being “the beast of Revelation” as some call it, and the other from Seventh-day Adventist radio hosts, who asked him questions, but did not delve into the importance of seeing the matter as it truly was, thus Palmer simply promoted his belief and moved on, with a precious opportunity to share the truth gone and the interview strangely disappearing from the station’s records. It was evident that God would seek to open Palmer’s eyes to the nature of the work he was doing, yet Satan had used Palmer for this work, and he that “has the power of death” brought Palmer into a motorcycle accident where he died only a week later. This only served to embolden those prominent ministers who heard and believed the message he proclaimed, to advance it’s cause.
Kenneth Copeland spoke in one of his conferences about the meeting with the Papacy, claiming that the miracle-working power began with at the Vatican with the prayer of a pope. That Pope, who prayed to and worshipped the Holy Spirit, asking for a new pentecost, where there is no specific command to pray or worship the Spirit. It is said that this spirit that was poured out upon the Pentecostal Protestants were to bring about the process of unity amongst Catholics and Protestants; to reverse the protest.
Following this course, that more significant events should happen flowing from the same vein of the spirit of antichrist. We are told of the Papal beast that it had a deadly wound (Rev. 13:3); speaking of it’s loss of authority over the governing agencies of the world. This began with the Protest of the princes, which opened the way for religious liberty, and the United States, and consummated with Napoleon’s general, Berthier, taking captive the Pope in 1798. Thus the Protestant reformation and religious liberty are united; to renounce one shall mean the removal of the other, and it will mean the healing of the deadly wound the Papacy sustained, both religiously and politically. The Lutherans meeting on the 499 year anniversary of Luther’s protest with Pope Francis to enter into the process of leaving behind their former divisions and calling an end to the protest, was a significant event. Speaking of this “wound”, Pope francis called “for this wound in the body of Christ to be healed. This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavors, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue.” In similar wording, the Pope, when announcing a “jubilee” in 2015-2016, and opened the “doors of mercy” to invite all to enter into the church to find mercy from them, he said that he did so because “it’s a favorable time to heal wounds,” according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The year started Dec. 8, 2015 and ended Nov. 20.
NATIONAL APOSTASY
We are told that the United States lamblike beast will “speak as a dragon”. Christ said it was “from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” The heart of the United States is in Washington, D.C. where all of it’s legislative branch is concerned; literally being known across the United States as “the heart of the nation”. It is from Washington, D.C. that this voice will be manifested.
Thus it was, that during the same period of time that the Evangelical leaders were meeting at the Vatican, the a close companion of Copeland,
Truly, the armies are gathering together for the battle of Armageddon.
Rodney Howard-Browne, held a call for America’s turning back to God at Washington, D.C.’s Constitution Hall, one of the closest buildings to the White House and Congressional Building. In the meetings, many politicians spoke favorably of Howard-browne’s mission, and several prominent Evangelical/Charismatic leaders spoke at the event in what they said was the Spirit of Elijah, to call for the nation to turn back to God. Howard-Brown said the event was to “light the fire in the belly of the beast…”; had he realized that it is the beast of America that calls down fire from heaven in the sight of men? He said it was to “get Jesus back in the government” that these meetings were held; yet this, as we had already looked at earlier, is not the Jesus of the Bible that wants to be in the governments of this world. The same sentiments were expressed by Jews who sought to make Christ king before the time, not discerning His true mission; thus the same error held by the Catholic church that the kingdom of God is on this present earth is largely held in these Charismatic communities who are grabbing earnestly to wield political influence and power. Lastly, in the meeting, he called “the separation of church and state” “a bunch of garbage”; all this proclaimed by leading Charismatics in the very heart, where the memorial of the Constitutional Republic was erected.
Standing where he ought not…
Further, in Washington, D.C., on the Day of atonement period of time on God’s calendar, the “day of judgment”, which fell on September 24th, 2015, the Jesuit Pope Francis, the very epitome of signs against the Constitution, spoke in a joint-meeting to the Senate & House of Congress, the legislative branch of the United States. The Papacy, the symbol of desolation, apostasy, and the removal of God’s presence, was greeted by awestruck men welcoming his message to the American people, who were represented by all the leading politicians of every State. Thus it was a symbol of God’s judgment; that the time of national apostasy was now ripe. The speaker of the House who invited the Pope said he had invited previous popes for the last 20 years, but only was it the Jesuit Pope who agreed. Seeming to herald the voice of warning, John Adams, the second president of the United States, said “I do not like the late resurrection of the Jesuits….If ever any congregation of men could merit eternal perdition on earth and in hell… it is this company of Loyola. Our system, however, of religious liberty must afford them an asylum; but if they do not put the purity of our elections to a severe trial, it will be a wonder.” It was further said by General Lafeyette, who united in the work with Thomas Jefferson of writing a Constitutional Declaration of the rights of man for France,: “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty.”
That God mercifully held back the Popes from speaking in the heart of the nation until the time of national apostasy would ripen was showing His longsuffering and forebearance, and love for His people, and desiring that “none should perish, but all come to repentance” under the most favorable conditions, where the proclamation of the gospel was free to go forward without restrictions upon religious liberty.
Donald Trump promises to secure power for Evangelical Christians if he might secure their support.
THE GATHERING
Again, a call was made to Charismatic, Evangelical, and Protestant leaders, which included James Robison, and was scheduled to feature Kenneth Copeland, to gather irrespective of their doctrinal divides, and to come together in “a solemn assembly” to pray unitedly for God to bring the nation to Him, and have His laws in the government. It was a call for them to unite, and to take accountability for the nation. The Gathering was held, and it’s mission was stated to be so closely aligned with Catholic ideology: “The church must again become the conscience of the government. Through its national solemn assembly it should clearly and respectfully call political leadership to God’s principles for government…which means that we cannot be so entrenched within political parties that we are not free to speak truth to power. It also means we must begin speaking with one voice so that the nation might see a unified church and not one that is fractured and scattered by differences in how we practice our faith.”
Notice what the Gathering is about? It is for the purpose of the church “again” becoming “the conscience of the government” to “call political leadership to God’s principles for government.” Yet God’s actual principles for government, and the promotion of being the conscience of the government are two ideas wholly at odds one with another.
Months earlier, Donald Trump made a promise to Evangelicals if they would vote for him. “The power of our group of people together…if you add it up … it could be 240, 250 million. And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have… you know the fact is that there is nothing the politicians can do to you if you band together. You have too much power. But the Christians don’t use their power…We have to strengthen. Because we are getting… less and less and less powerful in terms of a religion, and in terms of a force…And by the way, Christianity will have power…Because if I’m [elected President], you’re going to have plenty of power. You don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”
Donald Trump promising to secure Evangelical’s power if they will secure him the presidency.
From this, rose the Evangelical Advisory board, which had both Kenneth Copeland and James Robison, two of the men who had attended the 7-man representative meeting at the Vatican with Pope Francis. Through Ben Carson, Robison agreed to meet and counsel Trump, and related the story at a Kenneth Copeland meeting. Robison then proceeded to pray that God’s kingdom would be established “on earth as it is in heaven”, and for His laws to be the laws of the land- a true sound of alarm, since their idea of God’s law being legislated would force a religion upon Americans. More than this, Robison’s idea of what constitutes God’s law is the law of ten commandments which were changed by the Papacy, which includes the change from Sabbath, the rest day of God after creation was finished, to Sunday, the day of the sun.
The Advisory board however, would answer those very prayers, and was formed under the influence of Ben Carson, a former Seventh-day Adventist who ran for president. The purpose of the board was stated by the campaign. They “announced a new executive board convened to provide advisory support to Mr. Trump on those issues important to Evangelicals and other people of faith in America.
The executive board will also lead a much larger Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee to be announced later this month.”
The Evangelicals are to advise Trump on making important decisions, and to lead a larger “Cultural” committee, to have all of them work together. Just as Constantine of old did the same to unite the divided empire. Added to the “larger Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee” were 34 prominent Catholics also several months later. When speaking on what the Evangelical Advisory board’s specific role would be, the website says “the formation of the board represents Donald J. Trump’s endorsement of those diverse issues important to Evangelicals and other Christians, and his desire to have access to the wise counsel of such leaders as needed.” Trump stated, “I have such tremendous respect and admiration for this group and I look forward to continuing to talk about the issues important to Evangelicals, and all Americans, and the common sense solutions I will implement when I am President.” At his nominating speech, Trump thanked the Evangelical community: “I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because I’ll tell you what, the support they’ve given me, and I’m not sure I totally deserve it, has been so awesome and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight…They have much to contribute to our politics…”
Shortly after, Trump spoke at a Christian dominionist gathering. The dominionist theology teaches that the Christians should have dominion in every area of life, including government. That the Pope spoke at Congress was but a sign of the nature of what was in the heart of the people, in the heart of Protestants. It shows a lack of the gospel; desolate of God’s presence. Therefore, the Papacy in prophecy has had the legacy of being called “the abomination of desolation”. The government of the people have lost sight of the light of God’s principles, and as such, the prince of darkness interposes himself, as he did with Eve; and by prophetic-fallen Eve, to interpose upon the saints of God a legislative authority such as the Papacy held in old-Europe. Then will persecution be revived in such a manner as has not been witnessed since that time.
Trump, because of the widespread support of Evangelicals, became president, to execute his promises. Evangelicals have hailed him widely as God’s chosen to bring revival to the nation. Trump’s motto is for the government of the people to be “one people, under one God, saluting one flag.” This is indeed true in a church/state. The flag of heaven’s banner cannot be honored; the kingdom of God in the world to come must be renounced for men to seek to make this world their kingdom. All of this pulling together has culminated in a few short years to become what it is now. This began with the renouncing of the protest, and seeking full unity with the Catholic church, and it will end in persecution of God’s children.
Paula White, who is on the Advisory board, commenting on the unity after Trump was elected, said: “Far more than what divides us, this election has revealed what unites us. I have never seen such solidarity between evangelicals and Catholics, Pentecostals, charismatics and Baptists. We were brought together with a mutual love for our country and through a mutual faith in God.”
Truly, we must seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; to say with Christ, “My Kingdom is not of this world”, and to make our stand in honoring God above men. Even so, amen.
“Christ was a protestant. He protested against the formal worship of the Jewish nation, who rejected the counsel of God against themselves. He told them that they taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and that they were pretenders and hypocrites. Like whited sepulchers they were beautiful without, but within full of impurity and corruption. The Reformers date back to Christ and the apostles. They came out and separated themselves from a religion of forms and ceremonies. Luther and his followers did not invent the reformed religion. They simply accepted it as presented by Christ and the apostles. The Bible is presented to us as a sufficient guide.” Review and Herald, June 1, 1886
“The observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church.” Augsburg Confession of Faith. “They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Lutheran
“The observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church.” Augsburg Confession of Faith.
“They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of theTen Commandments.” -Augsburg Confession of Faith, Art. 28, par. 9.
“They [Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord’s day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue [the ten commandments]; and they have no example more in their mouths than they change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church’s power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue.” The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff, the Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon, only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation].
“For up to this day mankind has absolutely trifled with the original and most special revelation of the Holy God, the ten words written upon the tables of the Law from Sinai.”-“Crown Theological Library,” page I78.
“The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together, and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt, this took place as early as the first part of the second century.”-Bishop GRIMELUND, “History of the Sabbath,” page 60.
“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance.”- AUGUSTUS NEANDER, “History of the Christian Religion and Church,” Vol. 1, page 186.
“I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments…Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity abrogate sin also.”-MARTIN LUTHER, Spiritual Antichrist,” pages 71, 72.
“We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish Sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christian of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both.” The Sunday Problem, a study book by the Lutheran Church (1923) p.36
“But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel …. These churches err in their teaching, for scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect” John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp.15, 16
“For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday, then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has the right to do it?” George Sverdrup, ‘A New Day.’
“The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they […]
From Sabbath to Sunday- Moody Bible Institute
“The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?” – D.L. MOODY, “Weighed and Wanting,” page 47.
“I honestly believe that this commandment [the fourth, or Sabbath commandment] is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.’ It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was-in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.’ – Id., page 46.
“This Fourth is not a commandment for one place, or one time, but for all places and times.” D.L. Moody, at San Francisco, Jan. 1st, 1881.
What is the secret to health at a fundamental level? How might we secure it, and what about how God has created us tells us about this very thing? Discover in this short video on health that we are fearfully and wonderfully made!