Good morning.
Welcome to Inquisition Update.
My name's Tom Friess and I'll be your host for the next hour.
You're listening to First Amendment Radio dot com.
Thanks for tuning in, everybody.
Now we're going to return immediately to the book, A Woman Rides a Beast by Dave
Hunt.
Yesterday, at the end of the broadcast, we concluded Chapter 10, and now we'll
begin Chapter 11.
And as all chapters in this book, begins with some passages from Scripture.
This one, Matthew Chapter 16, verse 16 and 18.
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God.
And I, Jesus, say also unto thee that thou art Peter, Petros.
And upon this rock, Petra, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.
This passage from John Chapter 21, verse 15 through 17.
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep.
And from Vatican Council 2, quote, After Peter's confession of faith,
he, Christ, determined that on him he would build his church.
To him he promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Unquote.
Now, beginning the chapter, 11.
Is entitled, Upon this rock?
Question mark.
Begins with a question.
An infallible pope as Peter's successor?
Who holds the keys to heaven?
As vicar of Christ?
Once the boast was that papal pomp and powers were inherited from Constantine,
not Christ.
Today it is claimed that Christ's statement to Peter, quoted on the facing
page, made him the first pope.
The rock on which the one true church was built.
And that all who have followed in that office, no matter how violent or
fraudulent their acquisition thereof, nor how evil their deeds, have been his
successors.
The pope's authority today, and the Roman Catholic religion over which he presides,
stands or falls upon that assertion.
The pope is the church.
Without him, it cannot function and wouldn't even exist.
Hence the importance of pursuing this subject even further.
It matters little what Mr. or Mrs. Average Roman Catholic thinks or does.
But the doctrines and deeds of the hierarchy, and primarily of the popes,
make or break the Roman Catholic Church.
That is where our focus must be.
Not on the opinions of someone's Catholic neighbor who says he doesn't believe half
of what his church teaches.
Which, by the way, then he shouldn't call himself a Catholic in the first place.
And why trust a church with one's eternal salvation if it's not, quote, trustworthy
in lesser matters?
What about Christ's statement to Peter, quote,
Protestants argue that there is a play on words in the key verse above.
In Greek, Peter is Petros, a small stone.
While rock is the Greek Petra, a huge rock like Gibraltar.
Such a huge Petra could only be Christ himself.
And the confession that Jesus is the Christ, as Peter had just expressed it.
Modern Catholic apologists respond that Christ was likely speaking Aramaic.
Which eliminates that play on words and leaves Peter the rock upon which the
church was built.
That position, however, actually denies one of the basic tenets of Roman
Catholicism.
The tridentine profession of faith.
It has required all its clergy since the days of Pope Pius IV of 1559 to 1565 to
vow to interpret Holy Scripture only according with the unanimous consent of
the Fathers.
So what was the testimony of the Church Fathers?
How did the so-called Church Fathers, the leaders up to that time of Pope
Gregory the Great, who died in 604 A.D.
How did the Church Fathers interpret this passage?
It so happens that in this regard, they are unanimously in agreement with the
Protestant position.
Not one of them interprets this passage as Catholics are taught to understand it
today.
To be in agreement with the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, a Roman Catholic
would have to reject the dogma that Peter was the first Pope.
That he was infallible, and that he passed his authority on to his successors.
Devout Roman Catholic historian Von Dollinger reminds us of the undeniable
facts.
Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospel, Matthew 16,
verse 18, and John 21, verse 17, not a single one of them applies them to
the Roman bishops as Peter's successors.
How many Fathers have bruised... excuse me...
How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them,
whose commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine,
Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in Catinas,
has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the
commission and promise to Peter.
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build his
church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors.
But they understand by it either Christ himself, or Peter's confession of faith in
Christ, often both together.
In other words, contrary to what the average Roman Catholic has been taught by
his church, the so-called Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church stood unanimously
against the current Roman Catholic interpretation.
And it is a devout Roman Catholic authority on church history, one who loves
his church, who points out these facts in reference to Von Dollinger.
Now, other Roman Catholic historians agree with Von Dollinger.
Peter De Rosa, also a devout Roman Catholic, and by the way, a Jesuit,
just as ably punctures the balloon of papal supremacy and an unbroken line of
succession back to Peter.
Here's what Peter De Rosa says, It may jolt Roman Catholics to hear that
the great Fathers of the Church saw no connection between it, that is,
the statement made in Matthew 16, verse 18, and the Pope.
Not one of them applies, quote, to anyone but Peter.
One after another, they analyze it.
Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hillary, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.
They are not exactly Protestants.
Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a rock, or applies to him especially the
promise of the keys.
This is as staggering to Roman Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the
Fathers of the Holy Spirit, or the resurrection of the dead.
For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith, or the Lord in whom Peter has faith,
which is called the rock, not Peter.
All the councils of the Church, from Nicaea in the 4th century to
Constance in the 15th, agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the
Church, that is, the rock on which the Church rests.
Continuing with the quote, it says, Not one of the Fathers speaks of a
transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him.
There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office.
No hint of an office of Peter.
There is no hint of the Papacy, which is called the Petrine office.
So the early Church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor therefore did it
think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter.
The Gospels did not create the Papacy.
The Papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the Gospels.
And there isn't any.
Unquote.
So if Roman Catholics must believe what the Church Fathers teach, they may not
believe anything contrary to that which came from the unanimous consent of the
Fathers of the Church.
They must concede.
There is no Petrine office at all in the Roman Catholic Church.
Peter was not given any special authority, nor could he pass on this supposed
authority to anyone else.
A successor, as it were.
There is no such thing as the Pope.
There is no such thing as papal infallibility.
And the whole world is deceived.
Rome contradicts herself.
And why is that?
Well, because she simply made the whole thing up.
The Papacy has created itself.
Or rather, more correctly, the Dragon gave him his seat in power and great authority.
And it's all by deception.
Because Satan is the master deceiver.
The father of lies.
He was a liar in the beginning, and he's a liar today.
Now, continuing, he says that the Popes for centuries relied upon fraudulent
documents, such as we've already discussed, the donation of Constantine and
the false decretals, to justify their pomp and their power, even after their exposure
as deliberate counterfeits, betrays how little these so-called vicars of Christ
cared for the truth.
It also tells us that in those days, the Popes didn't rely for justification of
the papal authority upon Matthew 16 verse 18, an alleged apostolic succession from
Peter, or they would not have needed the false documents to authenticate their
position.
Such an application of, quote, thou art Peter, unquote, was invented much
later.
So who is the rock and the foundation of the church?
The truth of the matter does not depend upon a disputable interpretation of a few
verses, but upon the totality of scripture.
God himself is clearly described as the unfailing rock of our salvation throughout
the entire Old Testament.
See Deuteronomy chapter 32 verse 3 and 4, Psalms chapter 62 verse 1 and 2,
and that's just for starters.
In fact, the Bible declares that God is the only rock.
Quote, For who is God save the Lord?
Or who is the rock save our God?
Psalms chapter 18 verse 31.
The New Testament makes it equally clear that Jesus Christ is the rock upon which
the church is built, and that he and he alone, being God and one with the Father,
is therefore the only rock.
The rock upon which the wise man built his house was not Peter, but Christ and his
teachings.
See Matthew chapter 7 verse 24 through 29.
Peter himself points out that Christ is the chief cornerstone upon which the
church is built.
See 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 6 through 8, and quotes the Old Testament passage to
that effect.
Paul likewise calls Christ, quote, the chief cornerstone, unquote,
of the church, and declares that the church is also, quote, built upon the
foundation of all the prophets and the apostles.
See Ephesians chapter 2 verse 20.
That statement clearly denies to Peter any special position in the church's
foundation.
And here's another reference that Dave Hunt doesn't include.
The passage revealing that it is the rock, the stone that is cut out of the mountain
without hands, that strikes the image in the feet.
And the image is ground to powder and blows away with the wind.
That's all human government.
Even the government of the Pope.
Ground to powder when Christ returns and it blows away with the wind.
Christ is the only rock and foundation of the church.
And his apostles and disciples and believers simply are little stones built
upon that foundation.
Rome has turned this all on its head, twisting the scriptures to her own
destruction.
Now, under the subtitle, No Unique Promise to Peter, Dave writes, When Christ gave
Peter, quote, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, unquote, see Matthew chapter 16
verse 19, he explained what that meant.
Quote, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Unquote.
That same promise was renewed to all the disciples in Matthew chapter 18 verse 18.
And it was in John chapter 20 verse 23 with the special application there to
forgiveness of sins.
Clearly, the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given
to all, not just to Peter.
Therefore, it is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power or authority over
the other apostles.
Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament, and was unknown even in
the Roman Catholic Church until centuries later.
Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews,
see Acts chapter 2 verse 14 through 41, and then to the Gentiles, Acts chapter 10
verse 34 through 48.
But no special authority.
Catholic apologists claim that Christ's words to Peter in John 21, 15 through 17,
feed my sheep, my sheep, gave him unique authority.
On the contrary, Peter himself applied that command to all the elders in 1 Peter
chapter 5 and verse 2, and so did Paul in Acts chapter 20 verse 28.
Again, the Roman Catholic historian Von Dollinger informs us, quote, None of the
ancient confessions of faith, no catechism, none of the patristic writings
composed for the instruction of the people, contain a syllable about the Pope.
Still less any hint that all certainty of faith and doctrine depends upon the Pope.
The fathers could the less recognize the power of the keys, and the power of
binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman
bishop, inasmuch as, what is obvious to anyone at first sight, they did not regard
a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same
words on all the apostles, as anything peculiar to him or hereditary in the line
of Roman bishops.
And they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative
expression of binding and loosing.
The power of the keys, or of binding and loosing, was universally held to belong to
the other bishops just as much as to the bishop of Rome.
Unquote.
You see the papal foundation of the Roman Catholic Church crumbling?
That's right, it's built on shifting sand.
And Rome is really shifting on her foundations today.
Maybe tomorrow on the broadcast I'll read a recent article about the current Pope
Francis I.
And I'll show you just how unstable the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church
is.
It's startling.
Now, under the subtitle, Under the subtitle, No Special Power to Peter,
Dave says, The special authority which has been claimed by the Roman Catholic Popes
as Peter's alleged successors, was never exercised by Peter.
In his epistles, Peter exhorts equals.
He does not command subordinates.
Quote, The elders which are among you, I exhort.
I am also an elder.
1 Peter chapter 5 verse 1.
He offers as the basis for his writings, no official or exalted ecclesiastical
position or power.
He simply declares himself, quote, A witness of the sufferings of Christ.
Unquote.
See 1 Peter chapter 5 verse 1.
Along with all the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
As quoted in 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 16.
He makes no unique claim for himself, but simply takes his place with the other
apostles.
The gatherings of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem around 45 to 50 AD,
described in Acts chapter 15 verse 4 through 29, was convened on Paul's
initiative, not Peter's.
It was not the first church council, as some claim.
There was no church hierarchy, no delegates from afar, all present being
merely residents of Jerusalem.
Furthermore, it was James, and not Peter, who seemed to take the leadership.
While Peter made an important statement, it was not doctrinal.
It was mainly a summation of his experience in first bringing the gospel to
the Gentiles.
James, however, drew upon the scriptures and argued from a doctrinal point of view.
Moreover, it was James who said, wherefore my sentence is, unquote,
or rather, wherefore my judgment is.
It was James who was judging, not Peter.
And it was his declaration that became the basis of the official letter sent back to
Antioch.
There's no evidence that Peter intimidated others, but James intimidated him,
if nothing else.
Fear of James and his influence and leadership caused Peter to revert to the
Jewish traditional separation from Gentiles.
As a result, Paul, who wrote far more of the New Testament than Peter, and whose
ministry was obviously much broader, publicly rebuked Peter for his error.
See Galatians 2, verses 11-14.
Certainly, Peter neither acted like a pope, nor was so treated by the others.
It just simply does not exist.
There's no support for the papacy in the scriptures.
Now, who were the apostles' true successors?
Christ told the apostles to make disciples through preaching the gospel.
He added that each person who believed the gospel was to be taught to obey everything
that he had taught the original twelve.
Quote, Teach them, that is the disciples you make through the gospel, to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
Matthew chapter 28, verse 20.
This statement can't be applied exclusively to a leadership hierarchy.
All of those who became Christ's disciples through the preaching of the original
disciples were expected to obey everything Christ had commanded the twelve.
And in order to do all that the twelve were commanded to do, every ordinary
disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ as did the apostles.
No special privilege for Peter.
No special power for Peter.
No succession of Peter.
There's simply no biblical authority for the papacy, or its power and authority,
or its successors, or its laws, or anything else.
It is an institution devised by Satan to destroy this creation.
And we'll be back to discuss it further.
You're listening to FirstAmendmentRadio .com Worldwide.
Freedom is never free.
We need your support today at FirstAmendmentRadio.com Visit
CrossTheBorder.org C-R-O-S-S CrossTheBorder.org to get your print,
e-pub, or PDF version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's CrossTheBorder.org When it comes to prophecy today, much of the evangelical
Christian world has their eyes on Israel, waiting and watching to see when the Third
Temple will begin to be built.
The plans are drawn.
The Jewish people are eager.
Most evangelical Christians today believe that the rapture will happen before the
Third Temple is built.
Hi, I'm Michael Eugene.
I was taught that Daniel's 70th week was in the future.
Is that really what the Bible teaches?
Have we searched the scriptures and found this to be true?
Why is it so important for a re-established Israel to build a Third
Temple in Jerusalem?
Is it necessary to build a temple on the same location already occupied by the Dome
of the Rock?
Is it necessary for sacrifices to take place in the Temple on Temple Mount?
Is there really a rapture followed by seven years of tribulation?
What is the New Testament Temple?
Can we identify history and prophecy?
Who is the first beast in Revelation chapter 13?
Who are the seven kings in Revelation 17?
I have asked all these questions and I have found Nicholas Arthur's new book When
the Third Temple is Built answers all these questions and more using scripture
to interpret scripture.
The Bible says that no prophecy of scripture is of any private
interpretation.
Nicholas shows us in his new book When the Third Temple is Built how the Bible
interprets prophecy and not man's private interpretation.
Visit crosstheborder.org c-r-o-s-s crosstheborder.org to get your print,
e-pub or pdf version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org The book of Revelation says the spirit of prophecy is
the testimony of Jesus Christ.
This is at the very heart of firstamendmentradio.com In that spirit,
we have created the Prophecy Reality News app for all of your mobile devices.
Streaming First Amendment Radio 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Available for your Apple, Android device and smartphone.
Absolutely free.
Get the Prophecy Reality News app installed today.
So you can listen to First Amendment Radio wherever you are.
The Prophecy Reality News app.
Get it now.
Welcome back to the second half hour of Inquisition Update.
We'll continue where we left off before the break.
He says All of those who became Christ's disciples through the preaching of the
original disciples were expected to obey everything Christ had commanded the
twelve.
And in order to do all that the twelve were commanded to do, every ordinary
disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ as did the apostles.
And that's Protestantism.
And do you know what the popes have said about Protestantism?
All the Protestants are deluded.
They think themselves to be their own popes.
That each one of them has become their own popes.
No, that's not true.
We're not our own popes.
We are simply disciples of Christ and we obey His commands.
We have whatever power and authority Christ gave to us.
We exercise that power and authority in our lives.
And the pope is a fraud.
We are not popes.
There's no such thing as a pope.
We are the disciples of Christ.
It is the papacy who is in error.
It is the dragon who gave him his seat and power and great authority that is in
error.
Now whatever commands and empowerment the apostles received from Christ were passed
on to all who believed the gospel.
Their own disciples who in turn passed on this command to their converts and so on
down to the present time.
Obviously then, not some special class of bishops, archbishops, cardinals,
popes, or magisterium, but all Christians are the successors of the apostles.
The history of the early church given in the New Testament bears out the above.
The apostles did what Christ commanded them to do.
They made disciples by the thousands and passed on to them all of Christ's
commands.
And Christ himself from heaven empowered these new disciples to carry on this great
commission.
Christians multiplied and churches were established throughout the Roman Empire.
There were no cathedrals.
The local churches met in homes.
Leadership was by a group of godly elders who were older and more mature in the
faith and who lived exemplary lives.
There was no hierarchy locally or over wider territory which had to be obeyed
because of title or office.
There was no such thing.
There was no select class of priests who had special authority to act as
intermediaries between God and the people.
Such had been the Jewish priesthood which was a shadow of things to come.
And it did come, didn't it?
So, why any more priesthood?
See Hebrews chapter 7 verse 11 through 28 and chapter 10 verse 1 through 22.
Such had been the Jewish priesthood which was a shadow of things to come and became
terribly corrupt only to be done away with at the cross.
Every believer was encouraged to pray and prophesy in the church gatherings.
Paul made that very clear.
Quote, When ye come together, that is as a church, every one of you hath a psalm,
hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.
Let all things be done to edifying.
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three,
and that by course, that is one at a time, and let one interpret.
Let the prophet speak two or three, and let the others, those who are
listening, judge.
If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace,
so that the other can speak.
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be
comforted.
Wherefore, brethren, covet, that is earnestly desire, to prophecy,
and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Let all things be done decently and in order.
1 Corinthians chapter 14, verse 26 through 40.
There is the power that each of Christ's disciples has.
But the papacy claims no.
That he is the only one who has power.
There was no elite class.
There was no such thing as the clergy class.
I'm sorry, Mr. True News.
None of Christ's promises to the apostles were only for them, or for some elite
class.
For example, quote, If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that
they shall ask, it shall be done of them by the Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew chapter 18, verse 19.
Quote, Whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do.
John chapter 14, verse 13 and yet again, quote, Whatsoever you shall ask the Father
in my name, he will give it you.
John chapter 16, verse 23.
All Christians pray in Christ's name, yet this promise was originally given to
the inner circle of twelve.
All Catholics take the bread and the wine at mass, yet it was to the twelve that
Christ said, quote, This do in remembrance of me.
Unquote.
Luke chapter 22, verse 19.
Now, right here, I won't take issue because Dave Hunt's trying to make a
point.
But, Catholics do not take both the bread and the wine at mass.
They are given the bread and denied the wine.
That is a contention between Roman Catholics and Protestants to this day.
And, I'm just going to leave it alone.
But, it is an error to say that the bread and wine is given at the mass.
Now, it is clear that everything Christ stated to his inner circle of disciples
applied to their converts, and to all Christians today.
Does that mean that if two ordinary Christians agree on something,
it will be given to them?
Or, whatever an ordinary Christian asks the Father in Christ's name will be given?
Yes.
Then, why isn't every prayer answered?
They all are.
But, for some reason, the answer is no.
For others, later.
Christ's name is not a magic formula which, if added to a prayer, assures an
automatic answer in the affirmative.
To ask in his name means to ask as he would ask.
For his goals, for his glory, not for our own.
On this point, the church has badly deceived sincere Roman Catholics.
Every prayer a Roman Catholic priest asks is not automatically answered any more
than those of ordinary Catholics or Protestant ministers or laypersons,
for that matter.
That is obvious.
Yet, it is claimed that a member of the Roman Catholic clergy has a special power
so that whatsoever he pronounces in Christ's name, whether binding or loosing
or forgiving sins, automatically occurs.
Not so.
It is dishonest, it is corrupt to say that loosing from sin, which can't be verified,
happens each time a Roman Catholic priest pronounces it.
When loosing from a disease or a debt, which can be verified, rarely happens when
pronounced.
The implication is clear.
Whether it is obtaining an answer to prayer from the Father in the name of
Christ, or obtaining some blessing that two or more Christians agree upon,
or binding or loosing or forgiving sins, it does not occur automatically by the
mere expression of a formula, but is only done by Christ working through chosen
vessels, when, where, and as He pleases.
None of these promises work automatically at the sole discretion of Peter or any of
the other apostles.
Nor do they attach automatically to a member of the Roman Catholic Church or any
other religious hierarchy.
Such false dogmas have placed those who believe them under the power of Rome,
causing them to look to a priest for that which is the inheritance of every true
disciple of Christ.
Now under the subtitle, Past Tyranny and the Magisterium Today, Dave Hunt says,
the great apostle Paul wrote that, in so far as civil rulers do not command
that which is against God's will, every Christian, including the apostles
themselves, is to obey those rulers.
See Romans chapter 13 verse 1 through 7.
Now let me clarify this.
Let me emphasize something Dave says here.
The great apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13 verse 1 through 7.
You've heard so much talk about Romans chapter 13, commanding us upon pain of sin
to obey the civil authorities.
Let me ask you before I even go any further.
Should God's people in Germany have obeyed Adolf Hitler?
Adolf Hitler was the civil power, was he not?
The duly elected chancellor of Germany?
Look what the world suffered because the otherwise godly people obeyed Adolf
Hitler.
And I won't belabor the point, but you could name hundreds of sinful,
wicked governments that were obeyed by its people and resulted in the greatest
atrocities in world history.
And none of those civil powers was any more wicked than the papacy itself who
claims to be the ultimate authority of over all civil governments.
So we must question, carefully look at Romans chapter 13 and understand what God
is really trying to tell us in Romans chapter 13 instead of what is being spewed
from the papal pulpits in the protestant churches.
Listen again to what Dave says here.
The great apostle Paul wrote that in so far as civil rulers, that is the civil
government, in so far as civil rulers do not command that which is against God's
will, every Christian, including the apostles themselves, is to obey those
rulers.
We're to obey the civil power.
It's a legitimate power established by God, but that civil power cannot add to or
take away from God's holy law.
If the government becomes under the authority of the antichrist of Rome,
it is no longer a legitimate government.
And it must be disobeyed.
If to obey the civil power we have to violate God's laws, then we are to obey
God rather than men.
And this has been taught throughout the scriptures, but that's not what's being
taught from the protestant pulpits today.
The ecumenical evangelical churches today said we are to believe and we are to obey
the civil government.
And it has completely set aside the law of God.
It now rules at the behest of the papacy.
I've belabored this enough, but I'll read what it says.
The great apostle Paul wrote that in so far as civil rulers do not command that
which is against God's will, every Christian, including the apostles
themselves, is to obey those rulers.
Romans 13, 1-7.
We are to pray, quote, for kings and for all that are in authority, unquote.
See 1 Timothy 2, chapter 1-3.
Every Christian is to be subject to the principalities and powers to obey
magistrates.
See Titus chapter 3, verse 1.
But again, only in so far as the civil rulers do not command that which is
against God's will.
Now Peter wrote to the Christians, quote, Submit yourself to every ordinance
of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or unto governors.
See 1 Peter, chapter 2, verse 13 and 14.
The popes taught just the opposite.
They that were the supreme sovereigns and that only their laws were to be obeyed
even by kings.
Right?
The pope calls himself king of kings and lord of lords.
Remember where the pope got his seat and power and great authority?
From the deceiver himself, Satan himself, right?
Now if he commands the civil governments, obviously he is commanding people to do
those things which are against God's will.
Is that not true?
He says the total submission that Rome requires has been expressed by many popes
but none said it more clearly than Pope Nicholas the first.
Listen to what he says.
It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power
nor even by that of the apostle Peter if he should return upon the earth since
Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs, the popes, held the place of
God upon the earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man.
We are then infallible and whatever may be our acts we are not accountable for them
but to ourselves.
Unquote.
This is the lawless one.
This is the one who is not under any authority but his own and is accountable
to no one but himself.
The popes of Rome they have usurped the place of God on this earth.
They've overthrown the powers of heaven as it were.
The lawless one.
These are words from Satan himself.
Listen to it again.
This is Pope Nicholas I.
It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power,
not even that of the Apostle Peter if he should return upon the earth.
Since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God
upon the earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man,
we are then infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for
them but to ourselves.
Words of blasphemy.
And this blasphemy rules the world today.
Not just Roman Catholics.
It has made every civil government in this world an illegitimate government that
submits to this authority.
And we have no moral or spiritual obligation to obey Satan's laws and
Satan's vicar on the earth, the popes of Rome.
He says that Nicholas was not expressing merely his own fanaticism, but the view of
the popes, which eventually became Roman Catholic doctrine is clear, both from
history and from the official Roman Catholic Church dogmas, which are still in
effect.
According to Vatican Council 2, no one is allowed even to question the
magisterium in matters of faith and morals.
And I was asked the question the other day on another program, what is the
magisterium?
That is the official teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
That is the pope together with his bishops.
They are the magisterium.
They are the clergy class.
Okay?
They are the elite, the very rich ruling elite of this world.
And no one is to question the magisterium.
They are to just unthinkingly obey, to consent to every tenet of their
teaching that they are bound even in their consciences to obey the teaching of the
magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, both in faith and in morals.
That is, church and state.
Only the hierarchy can interpret the Bible, according to the Roman Catholic
Church.
Only the magisterium can interpret the Bible, and the faithful must accept that
interpretation as coming from God himself.
And everyone must obey the pope, even when he doesn't speak ex cathedra,
from the throne of Peter.
Such requirements of blind faith...
There's your blind faith, folks.
The blind leading the blind.
Such requirements of blind faith are today's vestiges of the tyrannical rule of
the popes down through the centuries.
When you submit to the authority of the papacy, you've submitted to Satan's
decrees.
He is a counterfeit Christ on Europe, and he's to be denounced as such by God's
people.
Protestant people.
Now, under the subtitle, The Failure of the quote-unquote First Pope, Dave writes,
If Christ's words to Peter in Matthew chapter 16 verse 18 made him the first
infallible pope, then we have another serious problem.
The next words out of Peter's mouth denied the very heart of the Christian gospel by
declaring that Christ need not go to the cross.
Quote, Be it far from thee, Lord, this death on the cross shall not be unto
thee.
See verse 22.
The Lord responded immediately.
Quote, What did he say?
Listen to what he said.
Get thee behind me, Satan.
Right?
In verse 23.
The immediate next verse.
This so-called infallible Peter, the rock and foundation of the church,
so says Rome, immediately tried to stand in the way of Christ going to the cross.
He said, Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee.
But the Lord responded immediately, Get behind me, Satan.
Here was Peter's initial ex-Cathedra declaration to the whole church.
It is recorded in the Bible.
His declaration on faith and morals.
It deals with the means of salvation.
And it was not infallible, but heresy.
The Pope puts all of his authority on the Apostle Peter.
And if it had been left up to Peter, Jesus would never have gone to the cross,
and you and I would have never enjoyed the cleansing that his blood obtained for us.
Infallible?
Hardly.
In the next chapter, Peter seriously errs again with another heretical
pronouncement.
He puts Christ on the same level with Moses and Elias.
Quote, Let us make the three tabernacles, one for thee, one for Moses, and one for
Elias.
Unquote.
Matthew chapter 17, verse 4.
This time it is God himself from heaven who rebukes the quote, unquote,
new Pope.
Quote, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.
Hear ye him.
Verse chapter 5.
Verse 5.
It doesn't say hear Peter.
It says, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.
Hear ye him.
Unquote.
Not Peter.
Later, fearing for his life, Peter denies, quote, with oaths and curses, unquote,
that he knew Christ again in declaration on faith and morals to the entire church
in denial of Christ himself.
Even if the Popes were his successors, Peter could hardly pass on them any
infallibility which he himself obviously did not possess.
Dave Hunt has a way of making a point, doesn't he?
I hope that point is well taken.
We've run out of time for today.
We'll come back tomorrow and continue our reading and discussion of the book A Woman
Rides a Beast by Dave Hunt.
Thanks for listening.
There are few commercials on this radio network.
There's a good reason for that.
Corporate advertising dollars come with strings that limit program content.
So without your help, these programs cannot continue on satellite, internet,
or our several affiliates.
If you benefit by the educational law programs, we ask you to give.
If you are admonished or nurtured by the Bible and ministry programs, we ask you to
give.
If some voice a cause that you are passionate about, we ask you to give.
If you believe in any of these, we ask you to support them as you would a
missionary on a continual basis, as if giving a tithe for missionary radio.
These programs are not commercially viable and must be supported by those faithful to
the cause of truth.
Look for the button to sponsor your favorite programs at our Listen and
Schedule pages on the internet.
We will also give you unlimited archive access to all of our programs.
We're asking you to give much less than a tithe, so that you may also send support
directly to a particular program host, cause, and anywhere else the Spirit may
lead you.
Do all to the glory of our God and Creator, for His holy nation, the only
kingdom that will last forever.
Thank you for listening.
Visit crosstheborder.org c-r-o-s-s crosstheborder.org to get your print,
e-pub, or pdf version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org When it comes to prophecy today, much of the Evangelical
Christian world has their eyes on Israel, waiting and watching to see when the Third
Temple will begin to be built.
The plans are drawn, the Jewish people are eager, most Evangelical Christians today
believe that the rapture will happen before the Third Temple is built.
Hi, I'm Michael Eugene.
I was taught that Daniel's 70th week was in the future.
Is that really what the Bible teaches?
Have we searched the Scriptures and found this to be true?
Why is it so important for a re-established Israel to build a Third
Temple in Jerusalem?
Is it necessary to build a temple on the same location already occupied by the Dome
of the Rock?
Is it necessary for sacrifices to take place in a temple on Temple Mount?
Is there really a rapture followed by seven years of tribulation?
What is the New Testament Temple?
Can we identify history and prophecy?
Who is the first beast in Revelation chapter 13?
Who are the seven kings in Revelation 17?
I have asked all these questions and I have found Nicholas Arthur's new book When
the Third Temple is Built answers all these questions and more using Scripture
to interpret Scripture.
The Bible says that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private
interpretation.
Nicholas shows us in his new book When the Third Temple is Built how the Bible
interprets prophecy and not man's private interpretation.
Visit crosstheborder.org c-r-o-s-s crosstheborder.org to get your print,
e-pub, or pdf version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled When the Third Temple is
Built That's crosstheborder.org