Welcome to Inquisition Update.
My name is Tom Friess, and I'll be your host for the next hour.
You're listening to FirstAmendmentRadio .com.
Thanks for tuning in, everybody.
I'm going to proceed now where we left off in the book, A Woman Rides the Beast by
David Hunt.
I'm going to start with the quote that we ended with yesterday.
We're still talking about the sacrifice of the Mass, where it is taught in the Roman
Catholic Church that participation of the Mass is a literal sacrifice.
A sacrifice just like that of the cross.
And that the eating of the bread in the Eucharist is the eating of the literal
blood and body and soul and divinity of Christ.
In order to achieve eternal life, in order to obtain, or in order to merit
eternal life.
This is the great abomination, the central theme of Roman Catholicism.
This is blasphemy, it's idolatry, it's ghastly in its teaching.
And this is what led the Protestant Reformation to come out of the Roman
Catholic Church, when they realized the false doctrines taught in the Roman
Catholic Church, particularly about the Mass.
And not only the Mass, but the Mass is what we're talking about.
We're beginning at the bottom of page 379, if you're following along in your own copy
of the book.
Consider Christ's words when he said,
I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.
And the bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world.
John chapter 6 verse 47 through 51.
Now, where did Christ give his flesh?
Not at the Last Supper, as Catholicism teaches, but on the cross.
That interpretive error is again a fatal one.
For when Christ said, quote, this is my body, this is my blood, unquote,
at the Last Supper, it was literally true, it was at the Last Supper, it was
literally true, then he sacrificed himself before he went to the cross.
Now, does that make sense?
If Christ performed the Mass, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, at the Last
Supper, then he crucified himself before he went to the cross.
If the Mass that Jesus offered at the Last Supper was what Roman Catholicism says it
was, then he need not go to the cross.
He says this is, in fact, a strange teaching of Roman Catholicism.
Quote, our Savior at the Last Supper on the night when he was betrayed instituted
the Eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood so that he might perpetuate the
sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries till his coming.
Unquote.
We repeat, if Christ is speaking physically of his body and blood in John
6, then those who eat of him will never physically die.
But all the apostles themselves are dead, are they not?
If he did not mean that eating of him would prevent physical death, then neither
did he refer to physically eating him.
He is obviously speaking spiritually, all through that chapter, as elsewhere.
Tragically, the Roman Catholic is prevented from receiving the spiritual
eternal life that Christ offers by the dogma that he is speaking physically.
Rome claims to control, quote, the merits Christ won, unquote,
and to dispense another installment thereof each time the Catholic,
so it is imagined, physically ingests Christ's literal blood and body.
The mass must be repeated endlessly.
It makes no sense.
It makes no biblical sense and no common sense.
Now, under the subtitle, Parables to the Multitudes, Dave writes, when Jesus said,
quote, I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, unquote,
John chapter 10, verse 9.
Not even Catholics take that to mean that Christ is a physical door through which
one must literally walk one's physical body to be saved.
He's using this analogy to illustrate that in believing on him, one walks through a
door into a new state of spiritual being, eternal life.
When Jesus said, quote, I am the light of the world, he that followeth me walketh
not in darkness, John 8, 12.
He was not speaking of physical light, but of the spiritual light, which those
who believe in him receive, in contrast to the spiritual darkness in which the world
dwells.
Further examples could be given, but would be superfluous.
Jesus continually called mankind to believe on him.
Whatever he spoke about, whether the new birth, water, sheep, shepherd,
seeds, sower, plants, fruit, bread, a door, was meant to convey a spiritual
truth through the physical objects of which he spoke, and was not to be taken
literally.
We're told specifically that whenever Jesus spoke to the multitude, he always
spoke to them in parables.
Quote, All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a
parable spake he not unto them.
Unquote.
In other words, he never spoke to them but in parables.
Christ was speaking to the multitude in John 6.
We know, therefore, that he was, as he always did, speaking in parables,
using figurative and spiritual, not literal and physical language.
There are, of course, other reasons for knowing this.
Further compelling arguments.
It was and still is against the law for a Jew to partake of blood.
See Leviticus 7.26.27, 17.10.11, etc.
And under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostles urged Gentile
believers also, as something necessary, to abstain from blood.
Acts 15.28.29 Surely, then, Christ would not require Christian or Jew to drink his
literal, physical blood.
And eating his physical body would be cannibalism, an act he would not approve
of, much less advocate.
That he was referring to believing on him and illustrating it by the symbol of
eating and drinking is clear.
Quote, I am the bread of life.
He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.
But ye also have seen me, and believed not.
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread.
The bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world.
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in
you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.
John 6.35,36,47,48,51,53,54 Is Jesus really saying that in order to receive
eternal life, one must literally eat and drink his physical body and blood?
Or is he saying that we must believe on him?
And he is using the analogy of eating and drinking to illustrate that truth.
He says very clearly that believing gives eternal life.
Yet he says that only by eating him can one have life.
Here is an irreconcilable contradiction.
Unless, of course, eating is merely symbolism for believing.
There is an obvious reason why Christ used the symbol of eating.
In the Old Testament, the priest ate the sacrifice.
The priests that offer it for sin shall eat it.
All the males among the priests shall eat thereof.
Christ was thus telling the Jews that he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament
sacrifices, and that his body and blood were to be given for the sins of the
world.
He was also introducing the priesthood of all believers.
Only the priest ate the sacrifice under the law, but now all must partake of him
by faith to receive the gift of eternal life by God's grace.
All must believe that the Son of God had become a literal flesh and blood man in
order to die for mankind.
There are numerous other reasons why Christ could not have meant the literal
eating and drinking of his physical body and blood.
This sacrifice for sin occurred only once.
If there were any physical eating, it should have taken place at that time.
The body that was sacrificed and laid in the grave, as already noted, was
resurrected and glorified.
Christ's new body, in which now resides at the Father's right hand in heaven,
has no blood and cannot die.
The old body, whose life was in the blood, no longer exists.
Paul said, quote, Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now
henceforth know we him no more.
That's right.
Let me read it again.
Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him,
as he was before the cross, no more.
Unquote.
2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 16 To suggest that the pre-crucifixion body of
Christ has been recreated on Catholic altars to be offered again for sin,
is a clear contradiction of both scripture and logic.
The bounds of reality.
The Catholic rests his entire case upon the plea that he is taking Christ
literally.
It is not literalism, however, but fantasy, to suggest that each one of
millions of wafers is the complete, whole, and entire physical pre-crucifixion
body of Christ, while at the same time Christ is in heaven, in his resurrected
body.
Quote, but God is omnipresent, is the response.
That's true, and because he is God, by his spirit, Christ is everywhere at
once.
But when Christ became a man, he voluntarily subjected himself to certain
limitations.
A physical body occupies space, and therefore can only be in one place at
a time.
Never is there a hint in the Bible that Christ was bodily present in more than one
place at a time.
Yes, Christ said, quote, where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them.
Matthew chapter 18, verse 20.
Christians believe this promise, but no one imagines that Christ is at once
in the same time physically present in the midst of thousands of different groups of
believers around the world.
In fact, none of them imagines he is present physically at all.
For that would mean he could be seen, but he is not seen.
To suggest that millions of wafers are each Christ's physical body, whole and
entire, is to depart from reality and to engage in fantasy.
Nor does Christ's language at the Last Supper support transubstantiation.
Quote, he took bread, broke it, and said, take, eat, this is my body which
is broken for you.
This do in remembrance of me.
This cup is the new testament of my blood.
This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
First Corinthians chapter 11, verse 23 through 25.
He wants Christians to remember his death on the cross and to take bread and wine as
a reminder thereof.
His language contains no thought of a repetition of his sacrifice on the cross.
Notice his words, quote, this is my body, unquote.
He didn't say that one day pieces of bread would become his body through the
miraculous power of transubstantiation wielded by Roman Catholic priests,
but that the bread at that moment was his body.
No one could take that statement literally, for he was sitting right there
in his physical body and holding the bread in his hands.
Obviously the bread was symbolic.
We may be sure that none of Christ's disciples imagined that the bread that he
held was his literal body.
That it could be his literal body and at the same time Christ be there in his
literal body was impossible.
Such a fantasy did not enter the minds of those present and was not invented until
much, much later.
It was certainly not conveyed by Christ's words, nor do we have any reason to
believe that the disciples deprived from them such a meaning.
Excuse me, that the disciples derived from them such a meaning.
It was Pope Innocent III, listen to this, it was Pope Innocent III who made the mass
as a quote, unquote, sacrifice official dogma in the Roman Catholic Church in 1215
A.D.
1215 A.D.
1200 years after Christ's crucifixion.
It became a dogma in the Roman Catholic Church that the mass was a sacrifice.
That the bread became the literal blood and body of Christ to be sacrificed again
on the mass.
Not until 1215 A.D.
Was the Roman Catholic Church in error for 1200 years?
That infallible church, 1200 years in error?
I think the point is well made, is it not?
Lutheranism has a similar view with regard to the mass or to the communion.
As hideous as this is, it's reality.
Martin Luther was able to shake free from much of his Roman Catholicism such as
infant baptism, etc.
And it remains within that church that bears his name to this day.
While denying that they teach transubstantiation, Lutherans declare,
quote, The true, real body and blood of Christ is somehow present, in a unique
way, in, with, and under the bread and wine, which are set aside, blessed,
and consumed in the Holy Supper.
That's the plain meaning of scripture, they say.
Matthew chapter 26, verse 20, 16, 28.
First Corinthians chapter 10, verse 16.
Chapter 11, verse 23 through 32.
The Lutheran doctrine is that the bread and the wine in the Holy Supper are the
body and blood of Christ.
How can that be?
We do not know and do not understand.
But Christ said that the bread is his body and that the wine is his blood.
We simply echo his words, says the Lutherans.
Those who do not believe Christ's words about this sacrament, do not discern or
recognize his body or his blood in the supper, and so can receive the sacrament
in only in an unworthy way.
That's what's still taught in the Lutheran church.
That's what Luther believed.
Now I have to believe that at some point, before Luther's death, he came to realize
the truth about communion.
That it was a memorial.
And that the bread and the wine were not the literal blood, body, and soul and
divinity of Christ.
But as I've been admonished by many Christians not to be too hasty with some
of the Protestant Reformers, that it took a while for God to correct them.
I have to be patient, but I cannot abide the idea that Christ must be ritually
re-sacrificed over and over and over, even on a Lutheran altar.
Are they Catholics?
That's what's apparent to me.
Under the appearance of Protestantism, they continue Roman Catholicism.
Now, Dave Hunt continues, It is not a question of whether one believes Christ's
words, but of how those words are understood.
There's no more reason to take him literally when he said, this is my body,
than when he said, I am the door.
To take him literally violates common sense, consents to breaking God's law
through cannibalism and partaking of blood, and leads to the foolish heresy
that in spite of Christ being in heaven, in a resurrected and glorified immortal
body, his pre-crucifixion body of mortal flesh and blood is being ingested again
and again by Catholics and Lutherans.
It also leads to the fantasy of imagining that millions of bits of bread or wafers
can each one simultaneously be the entire physical body of Christ.
At least Luther did not teach that Christ's sacrifice was being repeated
endlessly, and that forgiveness of sins and eternal life are received in
installments by eating the bread and wine.
That delusion fostered by transubstantiation prevents the Catholic
from believing in Christ.
The Eucharist is the very heart of the false gospel of works promulgated by Roman
Catholicism.
Sadly, the devout Roman Catholic has turned from simple faith in Christ as his
Savior to what he thinks is the physical eating of Christ's blood and body.
Thus salvation comes not through faith, but by works.
Not by believing, but by eating.
No wonder it is so difficult for a Roman Catholic to accept the biblical gospel.
He has been taught that each time he ingests the alleged body and blood of
Christ, he takes another step towards salvation and heaven.
Obviously, such a person finds it very difficult to accept that through one act
of faith, receiving Christ by faith into his heart, he is saved eternally and at
the moment of death passes instantly into Christ's presence, not into purgatory.
The gospel of God's grace is denied by the teaching that the, quote, merits and
graces, unquote, won by Christ are dispensed to the faithful in installments
through the Roman Catholic liturgy, especially through the mass.
The alleged power of the priest to turn the tiny wafer in the wine into the
literal body and blood of Christ is the heart of that lie.
Thus the Catholic, ignorant of the biblical teaching that Christ's one
sacrifice suffices and that there is no more offering for sin, has been convinced
by his church that repeated sacrifices of Christ on the Catholic altars are paying
for his sin.
We'll continue when we return from the break.
You're listening to Inquisition Update on First Amendment Radio.
Stay tuned.
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 Rocks?
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 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.
The program you are listening to is 100% sponsored by you, the listener,
on this First Amendment Rights Media channel.
You will notice that 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.
Music
Welcome back from the break.
Thanks for listening.
You're listening to firstamendmentradio .com, who sponsors the program.
So if you'd like to hear us continue, please support First Amendment Radio.
Now returning to the last paragraph, it says, The gospel of God's grace is
denied by the teaching that the, quote, merits and graces, unquote,
won by Christ are dispensed to the faithful in installments through the Roman
Catholic liturgy, especially through the Mass.
The alleged power of the priest to turn the tiny wafer and the wine into the
literal body and blood of Christ is the heart of that lie.
Thus the Catholic, ignorant of the biblical teaching that Christ's one
sacrifice suffices, and that there is no more offering for sin, as recorded in
Hebrews chapter 10, verse 18, has been convinced by his church that repeated
sacrifice of Christ on the Catholic altars are payment for sins.
Listen to this quote now.
The Mass is a truly propitiatory sacrifice by which the Lord is appeased and pardons
wrongdoings and sins, unquote.
That's the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
That the sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.
It appeases God.
It is the means of remission of sin and the infusion of grace, little by little,
each time it's practiced.
This is not biblical.
It's idolatry.
It's an abomination.
It's an abject repudiation of what Christ accomplished on the cross.
This excludes one from the kingdom of Christ.
And I'm not too harsh when I tell my listeners that those who participate in
the Mass eat and drink damnation to themselves.
Now under the subtitle, A Miracle?
Dave says, Those who reject the fantasy of transubstantiation are accused of not
believing in miracles.
Yes, quote, with God all things are possible, unquote.
Matthew 19.26, Mark 10.27 Even that statement, however, must be defined by the
nature of God and of reality.
God cannot become a demon or Satan.
Nor can he lie.
See Titus 1.2 Nor could God become the universe.
For by his very nature he is separate and distinct from the universe.
And pantheism is therefore impossible.
Likewise, a miracle must function within the bounds of verifiable reality.
A wafer which has been, quote, unquote.
Turned into Christ's body and blood.
Yet retains all its original qualities and characters.
Lacks an essential of a miracle.
To be recognizable and thereby bring glory to God.
Since the wafer and the wine remain unchanged.
The alleged miracle remains unseen.
But a miracle must be observable.
For instance, when the lame walked.
When the blind saw.
When the storm was instantly calm.
When the dead came to life upon command.
Or else, no one can know that it has taken place.
And thus no one can give God glory for it.
Of course, God would be able to turn a wafer into human flesh.
John the Baptist said that God could, quote.
Of these stones raise up children unto Abraham.
Matthew chapter 3 verse 9 and Luke chapter 3 verse 8.
But if he did it.
The stones which he had changed into human beings.
Not continue to look like stones and have all the qualities of stones.
To turn a wafer into human flesh and blood.
Deny neither the nature of God nor of reality.
But transubstantiation is not such a miracle.
The wafer becomes Christ's body under the appearance of a wafer.
There is no such miracle in the Bible.
The opening of the Red Sea so that the Israelites could walk through it on dry
land.
Was a feat that both Jews and Egyptians observed.
And that both understood had occurred by God's power.
Suppose it had been transubstantiated kind of miracle.
The Red Sea opened under the appearance of remaining closed.
And the Israelites had walked across on a dry land.
Under the appearance of having to swim across.
Suppose Christ healed a blind man.
Under the appearance of his not being able to see.
Or raised the dead under the appearance of lifelessness.
Such suppositions are ludicrous.
Yet that is precisely the nature of the transubstantiation miracle.
Let's take the miracle of the water turned to wine at the Inn of Galilee.
When the governor of the feast tasted it, he explained to the groom.
Thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Suppose he had said.
This isn't wine, it's water.
The servants replied sincerely.
No sir, it is wine.
The governor's voice raises in anger.
Don't mock me, it looks like water, it tastes like water, it is water.
The servants insist.
Sir, it is wine.
Jesus miraculously turned water into wine under the appearance of it remaining
water.
There is no such miracle in the Bible.
And for Rome to take such a claim is a lame attempt to cover up obvious fraud.
And that, my dear friends, is exactly what the entire Roman Catholic Church system
is.
A pious fraud.
And not even a good one.
It should be obvious to a child.
It is the Church of Antichrist.
The synagogue of Satan.
That's what all the reformers called it.
In writing.
And for it, they died.
And they insisted, even in the flames, that it was a fraud.
Not even to spare their lives.
Would they recant?
Decay, condemnation and death is the subtitle of the next portion of the
chapter.
He said, let us consider only one further reason why transubstantiation is a hoax.
The psalmist declared, and Peter quoted this prophecy in his Pentecostal sermon,
as did Paul later.
Christ's body did not decay in the grave.
Yet the consecrated and transubstantiated host reserved for administration to the
sick or displayed for adoration, breeds worms and mold if it isn't disposed
of soon enough.
If it were really Christ's blood and body, it could not corrupt.
Tragically, the mass becomes a cause of condemnation for Catholics.
Who, quote, are obliged under penalty of serious, that is mortal sin, to hear mass
on Sundays and Holy Days, unquote.
According to a recent poll, only 33% of American Catholics attend mass on any
given Sunday.
And far less do so every Sunday, as required.
Only 12% of the Catholics in France, which is 90% Catholic, can be found in
mass on any Sunday.
This works out to a very high percentage of Roman Catholics who are habitually in
mortal sin and thus deprived of, quote, sanctifying grace, unquote,
and, quote, the right to heaven, unquote.
So important is this transubstantiation dogma to Rome that multitudes who could
not accept it were burned at the stake.
It was for this reason that most of the 288 English martyrs were consigned to the
flames during the five-year reign of bloody Queen Mary, who brought Catholicism
back into England after a brief time of tenuous freedom from papal tyranny.
Many a sincere and devout Roman Catholic desired to save England before her beloved
Holy Mother Church and rejoiced when the Reformation was turned back.
Today it is leading evangelicals who are only too happy to undo the Reformation and
thereby deny Christ and his gospel.
And in the process they mock those who did not count their lives dear in order to
preserve that gospel for us.
Ecumenism is a repudiation of the Protestant Reformation.
Ecumenism is a repudiation of Christ and the acceptance of the Pope, the
Antichrist.
To have fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church is to deprive oneself of fellowship
with Christ.
You can't have it both ways.
You cannot serve two masters.
You cannot profess Christ with your mouth and serve Antichrist with your hands and
your feet.
That's what ecumenism is.
Are you Protestant or are you apostate?
Are you Christ's or are you Antichrist's?
That's the ultimatum.
You cannot partake in the doctrine of demons and expect the Holy Spirit to dwell
in you.
That's the end of chapter 24.
We'll proceed now to chapter 25.
The Reformation Betrayed.
It begins with quotes.
This from an Anglican Bishop, J.C.
Reilly of 1885.
Quote, The burning of the Marian martyrs is an act that the Catholic Church has
never repudiated.
Never has she repented of the retreatment of the Valois or the Albigenses,
of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition, of the burning of the English
Reformers.
We should take note of that fact and let it sink down in our minds.
Rome never changes.
Here a quote from Martin Lloyd-Jones.
The Roman Catholic Church is a counterfeit of the worst and most diabolical kind,
a form of the Antichrist, to be rejected and denounced.
And this from W.A.
Criswell, former President, Southern Baptist Convention.
This will make the hair stand on the back of your neck.
Quote, I don't know anyone more dedicated to the great fundamental doctrines of
Christianity than the Roman Catholics.
And finally, the one that depresses me more than any, the one I revered when I
was a child.
I don't think I ever missed one of Billy Graham's crusades.
But listen to what Billy Graham said.
Quote, I've found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of Orthodox
Roman Catholics.
Unquote.
Billy Graham and W.A.
Criswell betrayed the Protestant Reformation.
And when they did, they betrayed Christ, no less than did Judas.
Dave says, there is a growing trend among today's evangelicals to embrace and
promote a benign view of Romanism that contradicts the convictions held by
Protestants for more than 400 years.
The Reformation, if remembered at all, is being portrayed as an unnecessary
separation from a church which was biblical and evangelical.
Statements by various evangelicals today impugn the faith and the convictions of
the millions of martyrs who died rather than accept transubstantiation,
purgatory, indulgences, worship of saints, and the remainder of Rome's false and
destructive gospel of ritual and works.
If Roman Catholicism stands solidly for, quote, the great fundamental doctrines of
Christianity, unquote, then what was the Reformation all about?
If the view held by many of today's evangelicals is right, then those millions
to death by Rome throughout the centuries died not for their faith, but for a
semantic misunderstanding.
How tragic.
If evangelical and Roman Catholic doctrines are essentially the same,
as they say, then the Reformation was based upon an incredible mistake,
which is only now being recognized after more than four centuries.
But if that's not the case, and there were indeed clear and vital differences between
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on essential doctrines at the time of the
Reformation, why not today?
Has Catholicism changed?
We've seen that the dogmas of Roman Catholicism, which the martyrs could not
embrace, have not changed.
Nor have evangelicals as a whole opted for a different gospel from salvation by grace
through faith alone, as it was preached by the Reformers.
Certainly men such as Billy Graham and W .A.
Criswell have demonstrated, through long lives of service to Christ and winning
thousands to Him, that they would not knowingly compromise the gospel of God's
grace through Jesus Christ.
This makes it difficult to understand how they and other evangelical leaders profess
a commonality of faith with Roman Catholicism, which would have been
unthinkable to past generations of Protestants.
A major reason for this book is to dispel the gross misunderstanding about Roman
Catholicism.
Rome adeptly covers her real intentions with sweet words, and hides her true
character behind beautiful art and moving manifestations of piety.
Much of what we have revealed thus far, even the truth behind events so current as
the war in Yugoslavia, widespread sexual promiscuity of priests, and marriage
annulments by the tens of thousands, has likely shocked, perhaps even offended,
many readers.
This is because through its media dominance, Rome projects an image that
makes the truth difficult to believe.
Having joined forces in political and social action, why shouldn't Roman
Catholics and Protestants evangelize the world together as well?
At least they subscribe to the same creeds and many of the same morals.
Whatever slight differences in doctrine exist can hardly be of any great
importance, and should not be allowed to separate Christians, they say.
Such is the thinking of many evangelical leaders and their followers, through the
same misconceptions, gladly accepted.
History has been forgotten, and the truth suppressed.
The Protestant Reformation is so far removed in time that its issues have been
forgotten.
We need to be reminded of all the facts, no matter how unpleasant, in order to
dispel the misconceptions which the new ecumenism is based upon and promotes.
Most Protestants have only the sketchiest idea of what was protested so long ago,
and even less understanding of its significance today.
Even so staunch an evangelist as Billy Graham, like so many other leading
evangelicals, seems to have been persuaded by Rome's new posture.
Having visited Pope John Paul II three times, and apparently based upon the
Pope's representations to him, Billy Graham calls him, quote,
the world's greatest evangelist, unquote.
And says that any differences in their theology, quote, are not important as far
as personal salvation is concerned, unquote.
That the Pope has been less than honest with Billy Graham is clear from what we
have seen in its official teaching, and teaching about which so many
evangelicals seem to be poorly informed.
So eager are many evangelicals to work with Catholics, that they accept Rome's
self-serving revision of history without checking the facts for themselves.
Surely Rome's protestations of peace, love, and brotherhood in Christ are
sincere, so let us forgive and forget the past.
Even well-meaning evangelical organizations and leaders at times have
suppressed the facts in order not to offend the Catholics whom they hope to
evangelize.
William Ewing gives a classic example, quote, The Billy Graham Evangelistic
Association acquired the printing rights for a special edition of the classic Henry
H.
Halley Bible Commentary entitled Pocket Bible Handbook.
It described Rome's martyrdom of millions.
In its 1962 Billy Graham Crusade edition, the Graham Association removed all those
pages.
Why Billy Graham?
Why would you remove the facts of history to promote your ecumenism?
You've deceived millions, and I was one of them.
The same deletions were made from the additional special crusade editions in
1964 and 1969.
As a result, readers were denied dozens of pages of vital historical fact.
Those pages recited the evil of some of the popes as well as of Rome's persecution
and slaughter of Christians for centuries, even before the Reformation.
The following is just a sample of facts carefully presented by Halley,
still found in copies sold in bookstores today, but which were eliminated from the
special crusade editions.
Quote, the Albigensies preached against the immoralities of the Roman Catholic
priesthood, pilgrimages, worship of saints and images, opposed the claims of the
Church of Rome, made great use of the scriptures.
By 1167, they embraced possibly a majority of the population of southern France.
In 1208, a crusade was ordered by Pope Innocent III.
A bloody war of extermination followed, scarcely paralleled in history.
Town after town was put to the sword and the inhabitants murdered without
distinction of either age, sex or condition.
Within 100 years, the Albigensians were utterly rooted out.
Two centuries later, between 1540 and 1570, no fewer than 900,000 Protestants
were put to death in the Pope's war of extermination of the Waldenses.
Think of monks and priests directing fearless, heartless cruelty and inhumane
brutality, the work of torturing and burning alive innocent men, women and
children, and doing it in the name of Christ, by the direct order of the Vicar
of Christ, the Pope of Rome.
On the night of August 24, 1572, 70,000 Huguenots, French Calvinist
Protestants, including most of their leaders, were massacred in the St.
Bartholomew Massacre.
Some 200,000 more perished as martyrs, and 500,000 fled to Protestant countries."
Billy Graham, why would you hide this information from God's people?
To support your diabolical ecumenism, you betrayed Christ and his people.
Why the Reformation?
We've already noted that centuries before the Reformation, simple Christian
fellowship existed outside the Catholic Church.
These believers abhorred the heresies and hypocrisy of Rome and refused to honor the
Pope.
That's what the Reformation is all about.
A return to true biblical Christianity and a bulwark against Christ, against
Antichrist.
And they've forgotten it all.
What a horrible reality.
The program you
are listening to is 100% sponsored by you, the listener, on this First Amendment
Rights Media channel.
You will notice that 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 are 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 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 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