Tag Archives: Romanism

Does the Bible Tell Us To Confess To a Priest?

Every Bible Doctrine Changed by Rome

Wolf sneak

Courtesy of Larry Phillips

Matthew 21:42

Comments:
The Roman Catholic Church has changed every Christian
Orthodox Doctrine Found in the Bible including:

1. The Church’s Foundation Christ to Peter.

2. Believer’s Baptism to infant baptism

3. Eternal Hell to Purgatory

4. Mary the saved sinner to Mary the immaculately conceived

Read more: http://revivalandreformation.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/every-bible-doctrine-changed-by-rome/

Please note that The Antipas Chronicles holds to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, including household/infant baptism, and so disagrees with point #2 above.

Christianised Paganism!

Feileadh Mor

I normally do not quote Dispensationalists, especially Hyper Dispensationalists, but when you’re right you’re right.bullinger

…so closely is Romanism allied to Paganism, of which it is the outcome, that those who do not see the difference between Paganized Christianity and Bible Christianity, draw the false conclusion that Romanism is merely a corruption of Christianity, whereas it is little more than Christianised Paganism.

E. W. Bullinger, Commentary On Revelation

View original post

Gospel Coalition: “9 Things You Should Know About the Council of Trent”

Council_Trent

1. The Council of Trent was the most important movement of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church’s first significant reply to the growing Protestants Reformation. The primary purpose of the council was to condemn and refute the beliefs of the Protestants, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also to make the set of beliefs in Catholicism even clearer. Approximately forty clergymen, mainly Catholic bishops, were in attendance during the twenty-five times over the next eighteen years that the Council convened.

Read the rest:  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/12/05/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-council-of-trent/

In short, the Council of Trent (affirmed by Vatican II) also:

  1. Anathematized sola fide;
  2. Anathematized rejection of the Apocrypha as canonical;
  3. Affirmed transubstantiation;
  4. Rejected sola scriptura;
  5. Affirmed indulgences;
  6. Affirmed purgatory;
  7. Affirmed positions on marriage such as celibacy and denial of remarriage while having a living spouse; and
  8. Implemented the Gregorian calendar

Bergoglio a Destroyer?

Pope Francis in March 2013

Some Catholics are now saying Pope Francis is a heretic and not a rightful Pope at all.  This is due to the fact that he declared in a recent speech that the Jews are still God’s covenant people because the Mosaic covenant has never been revoked:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

One Catholic priest, Paul Kramer, notes that this position contradicts the official position of the Catholic Church, which is apparently that the Mosaic covenant has been abrogated or revoked.  Here is what he said:

I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.

Read more:  http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/paul-kramer-rejects-francis.htm

HT: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/12/a-public-heretic-cannot-be-pope/#more-63742

Christopher Ness on Arminianism

As blessed Athanasius sighed out in his day, “The world is overrun with Arianism;” so it is the sad sigh of our present times, the Christian world is overrun, yea, overwhelmed with the flood of Arminianism; which cometh, as it were, out of the mouth of the serpent, that he might cause the woman (the Church) “to be carried away of the flood” thereof (Rev. 12: 15). Thirdly, lest this overflowing deluge of Arminianism should bring destruction upon us, there is great need that some servants of Christ should run to stop the further spreading of this plague and leprosy.” ~Christopher Ness, An Antidote Against Arminianism (1700)

Arminianism: Another Gospel

Arminianism: Another Gospel 2 of 2 – Wesley, Moody, Billy Graham, Quotes By Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, Rutherford, et al., audio and pdf available.

Some quotes:

A famous letter written by a Jesuit to the Rector of Brussels and endorsed by Laud himself was found in his study at Lambeth. A copy of this letter was found among the papers of a society of priests and Jesuits at Clerkenwell in 1627.  The following is an extract: ‘

Now we have planted the Sovereign Drug Arminianism which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresy; and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season… I am at this time transported with joy to see how happily all instruments and means, as well as great or smaller, cooperate with our purposes. But to return to the main fabric: OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM.’ (S.G.U. Publication No. 173, p. 142)

Dr. Kennedy states,

“The new style of teaching made it seem such an easy thing to be a Christian. To find oneself easily persuaded to believe what was presented in the gospel, and to think that by this faith salvation was secured, and that all cause of anxiety was for ever gone, gave a new and pleasing sensation, which thousands were willing to share.”

On unscriptural worship:

In connection with unscriptural devices resorted to in order to advance the movement, Dr. Kennedy mentions first  excessive hymn-singing as one of these. “The singing of uninspired hymns even in moderation, as part of public worship, no one can prove to be scriptural; but the excess and the misdirection of the singing in this movement were irrational as well. Singing ought to be to the Lord; for singing is worship. But singing the gospel to men has taken the place of singing praise to God…. Many professed to have been converted by the hymns.

“The use of instrumental music was an additional novelty, pleasing to the kind of feeling that finds pleasure in a concert. To introduce what is so gratifying there, into the service of the house of God, is to make the latter palatable to those to whom spiritual worship is an offence. The organ-sounds effectively touch chords which nothing else would thrill….

“And yet it is not difficult to prove that the use of instrumental music, in the worship of God, is unscriptural, and that therefore all, who have subscribed to the[Westminster] Confession of Faith, are under solemn vow against it. There was a thorough change, in the mode of worship, effected by the revolution, which introduced the New Testament dispensation. So thorough is this change,that no part of the old ritual can be a precedent to us. For all parts of the service of the house of God there must be New Testament precept or example.  No one will pretend that for instrumental music, in the worship of God, there is any authority in New Testament Scripture. ‘The fruit of the lips ‘issuing from hearts that make ‘melody to the Lord,’ is the only form of praise it sanctions….

“But we use the organ only as an aid, it is said. ‘It is right that we should do our best in serving the Lord; and if the vocal music is improved by the instrumental accompaniment, then surely the organ may be used.’ On the same ground you might argue for the use of crucifixes and pictures, and for all the paraphernalia of the Popish ritual.  ‘These,’ you might say, ‘make an impression on minds that would not otherwise be at all affected. They vividly present before worshippers the  scenes described in Scripture, and if, as aids, they serve to do so, they surely cannot be wrong.’ To this, there are three replies, equally good against the argument for instrumental music. (1) they are not prescribed in New Testament Scripture, and therefore they must not be introduced into New Testament worship. (2) They are incongruous with the spirituality of  the New Testament dispensation. (3) These additions but help to excite a state of feeling which militates against, instead of aiding, that which is produced by the Word. An organ may make an impression, but what is it but such as may be made more thoroughly at the opera? It may help to regulate the singing, but does God require this improvement? And whence arises the taste for it? It cannot be from the desire to make the praise more fervent and spiritual, for it only tends to take attention away from the heart, whose melody the Lord requires. It is the craving for pleasurable aesthetics, for the  gratification of mere carnal feeling, that desires the thrill of organ sounds, to touch pleasingly the heart, that yields no  response to what is spiritual. If the argument, against the use of the organ, in the service of praise, is good, it is, at least equally so against its use in the service of preaching. If anything did ‘vanish away,’ it is surely the use of all such accessories in connection with the exhibition of Christ to men. [Hebrews 8.]

On the Sabbath:

Arminian church bodies of our day have removed the ancient landmarks set by the godly fathers in the past as safeguards and bulwarks of the sanctity of the sabbath. The result is obvious. The curse of the Popish or “continental Sunday” has overspread the land like a flood. Is it any wonder that Dr. Kennedy of Dingwall said that Voluntaryism and Arminianism must be pioneers of Rationalism, for they are both the off-spring of unbelief?

The Need for an Uncompromising and Vigilant Witness Against Arminianism:

“Warnings from the pulpit and denunciation of the errors of Arminianism are not now heard as once they were. Even in pulpits where the truth is preached, it is to be feared that, in some cases, a faithful witness is not raised against Arminianism. The cause of this may be due in a measure to the fact that in defending the cause of truth new forms of error have to be exposed and assailed, with the result thatthe old enemy is left so far unmolested as if it were dead. Unfortunately this is not so; Arminianism is very much alive in the pulpit, in the theological and religious press, and in the modern evangelistic meeting…. When we bear in mind the horror with which our forefathers regarded Arminianism, the modern attitude to it indicates how far the professing Church has drifted from the position of the theologians of those days.” (‘The Reformed Faith’ by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 18).