HYPOCRITES Holy OATH

I hereby solemnly swear blind obedience to Lord Lucifer, as his servant, to do his bidding to further his Kingdom of Darkness, by upholding these sacred Thirteen Principles:

(1) I vow to confess Christ always, for there is no other name given under heaven by which Christians may be deceived - as it is written, "Many shall come in my name and deceive many."

(2) I vow to be loved and respected by all, offending no one, claiming to hold the office of ruler, anointed to lead. To this end I will develop charismatic gifts of oration, memory, mendicancy and mystery. I will allege power to know, infallibly, the answer to Bible questions, including the utterances of the voices of the seven thunders, the day and hour of Christ's return, and the goings-on in the Third Heaven; Also, I will allege power to bestow wealth on those with sufficient faith or tithes; or power to hold a heavy, large-type, leather-bound King James study Bible in outstretched hand for hours, without breaking into a sweat; or power to never lust after a pepperoni pizza on the Sabbath; or power to see a sacred holy relic in a chicken bone; or power to change bread into God - as it is written, "for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

(3) I vow to misdirect the many away from identifying the true Antichrist in our midst, whose seat is the Vatican, Rome, by teaching he has already come and gone, or that he is yet to come, until a 'secret' Rapture escape of the Church occurs - for it is written, "they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life."

(4) I vow to unashamedly, and with great zeal, lead the many into spiritual fornication with the harlot Church of Rome, her whoring daughters, including her head, the papal Antichrist - for it is written, "broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be who enter therein."

(5) I vow to preach the love of God for all His precious creatures, both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, ingeniously twisting Scripture to give the many a false sense of peace and safety - for it is written, "when they shall say, 'Peace and safety,' then sudden destruction shall come upon them."

(6) I vow that when, through itching ears, I sow doctrines of devils, becoming the darling of the Christian community, garnishing honor, praise and the worship of men, I will feign humility, godliness and a humble spirit - for it is written, "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

(7) I vow that though I appear moral, righteous and above reproach, I will use cunning, as does the fox, to separate the congregations from their cash, using crocodile tears and repetitious pleas with great fervor, appealing to their emotions, guilt and greed, if need be. To that end I vow to implement the OT curse of the Tithe - for it is written, "as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse of the law."

(8) I vow to feel no shame in claiming my fair share of the wealth I generate through tithes and offerings, using whatever underhanded means are at my disposal to gather the harvest of gold, silver and corruptible things; including pledge drives, crusades, false miracles, false promises, speaking engagements, television, internet, radio, as well as mailings addressed, "Dear Beloved Brother or Sister in Christ," because the ends always justifies the means, and much cash is needed to perpetuate our deception, as it is needed to live the lifestyle worthy of ministers of unrighteousness - for so it is written, "the love of money is the root of all evil."

(9) I vow to lead the many into perdition by preaching a false Gospel which conditions salvation upon man’s free-will decision for Christ, thereby slandering the grace of God, while robbing Him of His glory and rightful honor - for it is written, "accursed are those who preach and believe another Gospel."

(10) I vow to lead the many into perdition by preaching a false Savior, a Jesus who fails to save those He wills to save, though we allege He shed His sinless blood for every creature, albeit in vain - for it is written, "there shall be false teachers who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the efficacy of the redemption of Christ, bringing upon themselves and their disciples swift destruction."

(11) I vow to call Calvin a mad man, a murderer and an instrument of the Devil at every opportunity, while reserving the status of sainthood for our dear departed demon, Servetus - for it is written, "the accuser of the true saints is cast down, blaspheming those who dwell in heaven."

(12) I vow to perform the satanic miracle of speaking out of both sides of my mouth, claiming to be anti-Rome, though in preaching and practice I demean, ridicule and subvert the Reformation, the Reformers and their beliefs - for it is written, "if it were possible, the false Christs and false prophets shall deceive the very elect," and few have ears to hear the truth.

(13) I vow to embrace and sow, with sacred subtlety, the teachings of Trent and Arminius, though I claim to be orthodox in the faith, a follower of Scripture alone, neither a Papist, a Calvinist or Arminian - "for while men slept his enemy came, sowing tares among the wheat."

All these things I do vow, swear and promise, so help me Satan. In the name of the Dragon, the Beast and the false prophet. Amen.

---

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, this people drawth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with

Unholy Mother of Intolerance: The Inquisition

by Avro Manhattan
(British Historian, now deceased)

Original Issue Date: January/February 1984 A.D.

If Hitler should return and proclaim deep love for the Jews; or Stalin appear and declare himself a Capitalist, would we not take them with a largish pinch of salt? Well, then! Why should we react differently to a similar "phoney" conversion of an institution which has surpassed the evil of both these dictators?

Today the Catholic church claims heartfelt love for all those outside her. This is as incongruous as the claims of a repentant Hitler or Stalin. Indeed it would be laughably ridiculous if we were not dealing with tragic matters.

Her sudden desire to "embrace the separated brethren" is nothing but her latest device to make people forget the basic spirit of intolerance and fanaticism. That spirit is as alive as ever, ready to strike should the opportunity present itself.

All her actions in past centuries speak of nothing else. Her main excuse for intolerance makes strange logic: She is specifically charged by God to save the souls of all Christians. Since the killing of souls was worse than the killing of bodies, she reasoned, and since heretics used their bodies to kill souls, their bodies should pay for the sins of the wicked souls they housed.

Thanks to this Catholic logic, soon the ecclesiastical and temporal machineries of the Western world were enriched with the noble practice of judicial torture, expressly employed by Holy Mother Church for the suppression of heresy, later known as Protestantism.

In 1252 Pope Innocent IV issued Bull AS EXTIRPANDA. It became the classic in inquisitorial procedure. It provides:

1. that anyone may seize a heretic and despoil him of his property;

2. that every magistrate shall appoint an inquisitorial commission, whose salaries are to be paid by the State;

3. that no law may be passed interfering with these Inquisitors;

4. that heretics who will not confess their heresy shall be tortured;

5. that the confiscated property of heretics shall be thus divided: one-third to the Inquisitors and the bishops, one-third to the city, and one-third to those who aided in the arrest and conviction.

Pope Innocent gave precise instructions to all Inquisitors to enforce the regulations throughout Europe. Eventually it was made Statute Law. The regular clergy proved reluctant, so the popes turned to the most fanatical, intolerant and narrow-minded section of the Church structure, the sundry monastic orders.

The two which excelled in their infamous task were the Dominicans and the Franciscans. Armed with practically unlimited power from the popes, these Inquisitors swarmed all over Europe like theological hornets, setting up tribunals wherever they appeared.

Soon individuals, communities, nations, and indeed, the very hierarchy trembled at the mere mention of their names. Wherever they came, denunciations, accusation, treachery, perjury, torture, woe, and death resulted.

The hooded Inquisitors did not content themselves with establishing their court in the sundry lands of Europe. Pope Gregory IX appointed a Dominican Grand Inquisitor for the whole of Armenia and Russia. Pope Urban VI ordered the General of the Dominicans to appoint Inquisitors for Armenia, Greece and Tartary (China).

Pope Nicholas IV asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to create Inquisitors from the mendicant friars in his land. Pope Gregory XI granted authority to the Franciscan Provincial in the Holy Land to act as Chief Inquisitor in Syria, Palestine and even Egypt.

When an Inquisitor arrived everybody was commanded, in obedience to the pope and to Mother Church, to disclose the name of anyone suspected of the slightest deviation from the Faith. The Inquisitors issued a compelling threat and a promise. A denouncer would get an indulgence of three years. Those avoiding their duty would be excommunicated.

Some denunciations were factual but many were concocted by vengeance, spite of jealousy. Those denounced, even on the flimsiest accusation or mere suspicion, would be arrested and flung directly into prison.

This usually was a common dungeon. Cold and damp, it lacked light or sanitation, and contained cut-throats, thieves, and the like. Among these the friars would plant spies to induce the accused, by pretended friendship, threats, or other methods, to admit his guilt.

If this first step proved insufficient, the suspected heretic would be chained with heavy irons and left to starve in a dark, foul hole called the durus carcer -- "cruel prison." The accused was then brought before the inquisitorial tribunal composed of friars. If he asked the names of his accusers, he was told that only his judges had the right to know their names. He had no such right.

He was asked to confess to his guilt. If he pleaded innocence, he would be sent back to prison. On a second or third appearance before the Court, if he persisted he was put to torture. The whole purpose of his trial, of course, was to force a confession of heresy.

Torture was inflicted without solid proof of guilt. Two complainers or even one single accuser was sufficient for subjection to the agonies of torture, even if the accused man had, until then, been of unblemished character, pristine honesty and genuine piety.

The methods, kinds and degrees of torture were endless. The three basic ones employed were hoisting the man to the ceiling by his hands tied behind his back, breaking him on the rack, or greasing his feet and thrusting them into the fire.

If, following all the exquisite devices of torture, the heretic refused to recant or to admit his guilt, then the Inquisitors would pass capital sentence of heresy. Having done that, they would hand him over to the "secular arm," the civil authorities.

To complete the macabre farce, the Holy Inquisitors would ask these same temporal powers, in the name of the Church, not to kill the poor accused. This formality was a mere legalistic device to make the Church appear innocent of the blood which was about to be spilled--or rather, burned.

The civil authorities could not heed this hypocritical plea, however, lest the Holy Inquisition fall upon them. Refusal to burn the heretic would have placed the temporal authorities themselves on trial for their lives. For heresy, of course!

Soon no one was safe from potential arrest. The spying, denunciation, and hunting down of heretics reached cleric or lay, men or women, noble or common. No one was immune from the terrorizing omnipresence of the Holy Inquisition.

This reign of Catholic terror lasted for centuries. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and yes, even children were murdered...burned alive at the stake. Simply because they dared to disagree with the Holy Catholic Church or with her popes.

This Catholic terror officially ended less than two hundred years ago. As recently as 1762 a Protestant pastor was condemned to death in France. Why? Simply because he was a Protestant! By whom? By the Catholic Church! Yes, by that same church which now pretends to love her "dear separated brethren."

Indeed, in Europe torture was still enforced by all the Tribunals of the Holy Inquisition until the last century, the pope being forced to abolish it only in 1816.

It was Napoleon, who entered Madrid in 1808, who was to abolish the Inquisition. When the Spanish Parliament in 1813 declared it incompatible with the Constitution, the Vatican protested. Super-Catholic Ferdinand VII restored it in 1814, with the full approval of the Church. The Holy Inquisition was finally suppressed by the Liberals in July, 1834.

Yes, SUPPRESSED. Was not this same spirit still alive in Croatia in 1942 when the Catholic Ustachi mutilated hundreds of thousands of Serbian "heretics?" Or in South Vietnam in 1960 when Catholic President Diem set out to rid that country of Buddhist "heretics?" Or in 1983 when Christmas shoppers in Protestant ("heretic") London were blasted into eternity by a Catholic IRA terrorist bomb in a crowded department store?

So the Office of the Holy Inquisition was abolished only as recently as last century. Let us never forget that the Catholic Church was forced to abolish it by a lay government. Yet it is still alive, a roaring lion gnashing at his cage bars still seeking whom he may devour.

Pope denounced as 'anti-Christ' in radio fire and brimstone row

By John Cooney
Wednesday January 23 2008

A new Messiah has risen to save the Protestant people of Ulster from the heretical snares of Rome and to keep the Pope, "the anti-Christ", out of the North.

An unholy row on yesterday's 'Joe Duffy show' began innocently enough, when the chief aide to Nigel Dodds, the North's Enterprise Minister, voiced his objections to the sale of Catholic rosary beads inside St Patrick's Cathedral, in Dublin.

Wallace Thompson challenged the Anglican Dean of St Patrick's, Dr Robert MacCarthy, for selling rosaries not sanctioned in Holy Scripture, in the cathedral gift shop.

The Dean explained that the beads were sold because the shop attracted visitors of all denominations, and revenue from the sales helped finance the cathedral's upkeep.

During an hour-long phone-in, Mr Thompson castigated these misguided papists for adhering to a corrupt church that demanded Protestant partners in a mixed marriage to surrender to their creed.

The temperature became as hot as the fires of hell when Mr Thompson pleaded with Irish Catholics to abandon their idolatrous prayer to the Virgin Mary.

Then Mr Thompson, speaking in a personal capacity, escalated his war of religions when he denounced the Pope as the anti-Christ and announced he would oppose plans to bring Benedict to the North.

"The Pope is the anti-Christ ... a lot of Protestants probably might not hold (that view) but it is still enshrined in the standards," he said.

"It is a strong statement to make, but in expressing those views I am not conflicting with the main teachings of the main churches," Mr Thompson thundered.

Oppose

The 54-year-old married father-of-three, who is a regular preacher across the North, and a member of the Independent Orange, went on to warn that true Protestants would totally oppose a papal visit.

SDLP Assembly member Dolores Kelly said Mr Thompson's fundamentalist language was a throwback to the North's troubled past.

"I don't think he has any right to deprive the people of the north, and in particular the Catholic population,of an opportunity to greet and meet their spiritual leader," she said.

Sinn Fein Assembly group leader, John O'Dowd, described Mr Thompson's comments as "deeply insulting to many, many people across this island".

Last night, a worldly wise DUP official was at pains to emphasise that Mr Thompson was not speaking in a political capacity.

- John Cooney

The God of Your Mind

By Michael Bunker
editor@lazarusunbound.com

All nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to Him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?” Isaiah 40:17-18

March 01, 2002 — The last days gospel is a man-centered gospel. Surely most of my readers will agree with that. What is strange is that we may all agree that the current pseudo-gospel is man-centered, and still almost ALL of nominal Christendom participates in some form of it.

Here is an interesting quote by A.W. Pink:

"The ‘god’ of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The ‘god’ who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside the pale of Christendom form ‘gods’ out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a ‘god’ out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolute supreme God, and no God at all. A ‘god’ whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt.” Pink, The Attributes of God - 1930

I write this article with some sadness because many of even my closest friends and family members have chosen such a “god” to worship. It once was to our credit when we told a heathen man that he knew not God, and it was accounted to us as “evangelism”. Today, since most of those who profess Christianity are certainly not worshippers of the Sovereign God of the universe, but as Pink rightly relates they are nothing more than religious atheists, we are forced to realize that to tell nominal Christians that they neither KNOW God, nor are they known of Him, in their minds makes us outcasts, haters, cultish and mean.

“Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts 15:18)

You will notice that what is known unto God are all HIS works. The Christian heathen will operate under a faulty understanding of Foreknowledge. In every case where the word FOREKNOWLEDGE is used of God, the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge of PEOPLE and not of events or actions. Surely God foreknows all events and actions, that I firmly assert, but that is not what the term “foreknowledge” means in the bible. God foreknows all events and actions, even the horrible and sinful crucifixion of His Son, not because he is a passive watcher, banned from His creation, but because all events and actions proceed from His creative decrees, and all events and actions are the product of His direct determinative counsel and foreknowledge. We see this in regard to the death of Jesus: “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) It is clear that Jesus was foreknown of the Father, and that his death was decreed of the Father. In fact, Jesus claims that it is the Father that sent Him: “I know Him: for I am from Him, and He hath sent me.” (John 7:29) Also, we read: “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15) Once again we can see that the life of Jesus was ordered around the ordained and decreed will of the Father. The Old Testament agrees: “and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6) and “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; he hath put Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10). It is God that works all things according to the counsel of His own will, even the death of His dear Son.

In the issue of salvation, some will say that God “foreknew” the actions of those who would be receptive to His Spirit, and so He predestined those who He “foreknew” would come to Him. This is utter foolishness and it is at the heart of the rebellion of man-centered “Christianity”. This belief inverts the actor and the one acted upon, and it makes God a mere responder to something “good” found in man. It makes a “god” who is NOT independent and all powerful, but makes his salvation determined by the pre-discovered goodness found in man. But we know that the salvation of God is not determined by what God finds in man. There is nothing good in man and we are altogether born dead in trespasses and sins. Salvation is determined by the determinate counsel of God, based on those that He knew with affection and elected to that salvation before the foundation of the world.

Some will make God a liar. They will say that God knew EVERYONE from the foundation of the world. But God will clearly say in all honesty to almost all of those who were ever to be born on this planet “I NEVER knew you.” Many will squeal and clamor at Him in that day. They will say, “But God, you KNOW everyone and everything”, and His answer will be the Truth proclaimed once again unto them:

“But I never knew YOU.”

This word “know” is not always the mere cognitive understanding of a thing or person. Quite often in scripture it declares the affection for the person, and not merely the cognition of them. Jesus told the Pharisees: “he that sent me is true, whom ye KNOW not” (John 7:28) Surely the Pharisees knew OF God, and were very cognizant of His existence, yet Jesus proclaims to them that they KNOW Him not, showing that they were not only ignorant of His character and His sovereignty, but they had no affection for Him. This can also be said of almost every one of those who claim to be Christians today. Unto those who he has ordained to Salvation, He says, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee” (Jer 1:5)

HERE IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM

“Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such as one as thyself” (Psalms 50:21)

The “god” of the Christian religion today is the carnal god created in the mind of man and in the image of man. The average professing Christian creates in his mind an image of God that is altogether unlike the Sovereign God of the bible, but is wholly like THEM (only with sin). In their minds they say, “Here is what God is like”, when they actually are creating a God that thinks like them and acts like they would IF THEY WERE PERFECTLY SINLESS.

Listen to what Jesus said, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him” (John 8:54-55). Jesus says to the religious people of His day, that they say that He is their God, but they don’t KNOW Him.

One of the oft-repeated sayings of our current religious culture is, “Christianity is about relationship. We want a personal relationship with God.” Who is this ‘god’ of the personal relationship? Can you find for me the scripture that says this? It must be in the same book that has another often repeated saying, “God helps those who help themselves”. Can you find that scripture for me too?

What does the bible say about the REAL God?

God calls Himself the Potter. He says that he fashions one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor (Romans 9:21). Some he will love and “know”, others shall be broken with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed “in pieces like a potter’s vessel” (Psalm 1:9) “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35) Modern Christianity has pots going about to try and please God by their actions, making themselves approved by their works and calling themselves “vessels of honor” apart from them being CREATED to be such.

“Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and Thou art exalted as Head above all” (1 Chron. 29:11)

He is the “Governer among the nations” (Psalm 22:28)

“O LORD GOD of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? And rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?” (2 Chron. 20:6)

God rules NOW in heaven and on the earth. He will not only rule in the millennium, but He rules NOW and has done all those things in heaven and in earth that he has purposed in Himself for the praise of His glory. His decrees are accomplished. His will is done NOW in heaven and in earth! So why does Jesus pray that things will be done on heaven as they are done on earth? In Heaven His will is done purposefully, joyfully and immediately, while on earth His work is done ignorantly, unwittingly and despite the ornery and contrary will of those who claim to know Him.

Did Judas do the will of the Father? Certainly he did. Jesus said that he only said what He heard the Father say. Jesus decreed to Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly” (John 13:27), showing that it was the decreed will of the Father that Judas was to fulfill the scriptures that foretold of His betrayal. But did Judas do this thing willingly? Was he a free moral agent? Why would he say to Jesus, “Master, is it I?” (Matthew 26:25) Judas did that for which He was created. He was a slave to the decree of God right up to the point where Jesus allowed him to be filled with Satan, whereby he still fulfilled the purpose of God. He, like Pharoah, was a vessel of dishonor created for destruction. Luke said this: “this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus, For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.” It remains for the reader to decide whether or not at the time of this writing by David it was still an unknown thing unto an omniscient and omnipotent God that Judas would absolutely betray Him, or whether it was within the fallen and corrupt Judas to withstand the ordinance and decree of God that he must betray Jesus. If you decide that God only “foreknew” that Judas was to betray Christ, then you do violence to the direct exhortation of the scripture that says that Jesus was delivered by the “determinate counsel” of God. Will you claim that God “foreknew” Judas? What of this scripture: “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29) Judas was never conformed to the image of Jesus.

God did not just “foreknow” what actions Judas would take. To believe that is foolishness. It not only denies the Sovereignty and Power of God, but it also makes of Judas the creator of His own actions, and of God merely a responder to the vessel created for wrath.

The “god” of the mind is one that can elect some unto salvation (2 Thess. 2:13) but wouldn’t dare elect some unto reprobation. The one who worships the “god” of the mind will have the Father give some unto Christ (John 6:37) but will deny that there are those who were NOT given unto Christ. The heathen “Christian” atheist religionist will deny that there are those that the Lord hardens unto their own destruction. They will deny that “the LORD hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4)

So where is this “god” of the “personal relationship”? Who can claim to “know God” other than in the manifold and wonderful ways that He has shown Himself to us in the Scripture? Can the sheep truly say that they “know” the shepherd? Not in a personal way. Do they know much of Him at all? Jesus says, “I am known of mine”, but He does so in the context of us being sheep and Him being the Shepherd. We may know Him and hear His voice and follow Him, but what we Know of Him is only “through a glass darkly” based on what He has allowed us to know of Him.

The heathen Christian “god” of the personal relationship is really the “god” of emotion and personal experience. I meet folks who worship this god every day. Listen to the words that come out of their mouths. They will always tell you of their personal experience with God, whether that experience lines up with Scripture or not. After reading the previous section on God’s willingness to create some people only to eventually destroy them in hell, they will cry “My ‘god’ is not like that!”

Really?

“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to MAKE one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Romans 9:20-21)

“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” (Isaiah 46:9-10) “The Lord hath made all things for Himself” (Prov. 16:4), and John said that for His “pleasure they were created” (Rev. 4:11)

John Bunyan said, “They that do continue to reject and slight the Word of God are such, for the most part, as are ordained to be damned.” Still, the “god” of the mind is the one worshiped by nearly all those who claim to be Christians. They “know ‘god’” in that they have affection for the mythic creation of their fallen, carnal minds, but the one, true God declares that they do not KNOW HIM, the Sovereign Creator God of the Universe. He says that they will say that they know Him, but they do not know Him.

Those who He has ordained to eternal life know Him, just as a sheep may know His shepherd. But there are so many things about Him that we do not know, for “how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? or who hath first given unto Him, and it shall be recompensed unto Him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36) Do you see that Salvation cannot be compensation for anything that proceeded from, and that has its origins in, man? Which God have you believed?

Most Christians today do not KNOW God, although they claim to know Him. They have no affection for the real God of the Bible, in fact, they have disdain for Him. They would dethrone Him in an instant if they had the power. They use Bibles for manipulation and coercion and to assuage their consciences, but they will scream and yell and howl at this doctrine of God’s Sovereignty, although it is consistent througout all of Scripture. They know the “god” of their minds, and they have affection for him and they have enthroned him in their carnal mental temple, that temple they have constructed to the “god” of their minds “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4)

In the end you will either believe or disbelieve in God’s Sovereignty, or you will soften its edges with compromises in order to blunt the truth of it. But you will certainly not affect the Glory of God or His Sovereignty by your belief or unbelief, for “when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants” (Luke 17:10) You will not have had an affect on the glory of God one way or the other. All those who read these words will, in the end, come to know the One and True God, or they will continue to worship the God of their minds, and in doing so they will heap unto themselves destruction and damnation for all eternity.

Man-centered religion is the product of “churches” and their foul shepherds. This is their fruit – a false gospel of lies that leads men to worship at the foot of the “god” of the mind.

Rail on ye workers of iniquity who slight the Word of God to your own destruction. Wrestle with the Scriptures while it is daylight. The night comes quickly. Repent from your evil way and go unto the REAL Jesus Christ while there is still time, “casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

The Faith Of The Historic Christian Churches

---

This doctrine is written into the Historic Creeds and Confessions of all those Churches which held, in their earliest days, the Bible to be the Sole Rule of Faith and Practice.
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley

EPISCOPALIAN (Anglican)

The Irish Articles adopted by the Archbishops, Bishops and Convocation of the Irish Episcopal Church and approved by the Viceroy in 1615 state:-

Article 79: The power which the Bishop of Rome now challengeth to be supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, and to be above all emperors, kings, and princes, is a usurped power, contrary to the Scriptures and Word of God, and contrary to the example of the Primitive Church; and therefore is for most just causes taken away and abolished within the King's Majesty's realms and dominions.

Article 80: The Bishop of Rome is so far from being the supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, that his works and doctrine do plainly discover him to be that 'man of sin' foretold in the holy Scriptures, 'whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and abolish with the brightness of His coming.'

PRESBYTERIAN

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 25 paragraph VI:-

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.

CONGREGATIONAL

Savoy Declaration, Chapter 26 paragraph IV:-

IV. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but it (he) is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

BAPTIST

The Baptist Confession of 1688, Chapter 26 paragraph 4:-

4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the Church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God: whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

METHODIST

Notes of John Wesley on the New Testament II Thessalonians 2:3:-

"However, in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. Commanding angels and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, 'Most Holy Lord,' or 'Most Holy Father,' so that he sitteth enthroned in the temple of God, mentioned in Rev. 11:1. Declaring himself that he is God - claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone."

The Translators who produced the Genevan Version of the Holy Scriptures and the Translators who produced the Authorised Version all believed that the Pope was the Antichrist.

Taken From :

Source

Calvinism and Arminianism

Calvinism

When John Calvin wrote the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1535 (at the ripe old age of 27), his intention was to serve the Protestant interests at large, but its influence must have far exceeded his anticipation. It proved to be the most influential work of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants in different countries saw Calvin as a pillar of strength to their cause, a theologian of the highest rank, while Romanists feared his pen as one of their most formidable foes. A Catholic writer had this to say of the Institutes:

"It is the Koran, the Talmud of heresy, the foremost cause of our downfall,... the common arsenal from which the opponents of the old Church borrowed their keenest weapons. No writing of the Reformation era is more feared by Roman Catholics, more zealously fought against, and more hostilely pursued, than Calvin's Institutes".

The Swiss city of Geneva, under Calvin's influence as pastor and reformer, became a refuge to which fugitives might flee from persecution, and a training-school in which missionaries and reformers might be equipped and sent forth for heroic service. It was truly the nerve-center of the Reformation. Emperor Philip II, son of Charles V, expressed the thoughts of many foes of the Reformation when he wrote the following to the King of France regarding Geneva:

"This city is the source of all mischief for France and the most formidable enemy of Rome. At any time I am ready to assist, with all the power of my realm, to overthrow it."

The French government on its part threatened to destroy the city if it did not keep its evangelists at home, and sent an ambassador to give notice to that effect. The evangelists continued to pour forth, in defiance of the French government, after Calvin assured the magistrates of the city of Geneva with these bold words:

"Inasmuch as the city depends upon the omnipotent God alone for protection, the highest prudence consists in the most perfect obedience to His will."

Calvinism in Western Europe:

The city of Geneva was truly the nerve-center of the Reform movement. The congregations founded in Switzerland in the time of Zwingli were united with Geneva in a great sisterhood of churches, which came to be known as the Reformed Church of Switzerland. There were many reformed churches in Germany, and many of the southern provinces of Germany were predominantly of the Reformed faith, (e.g. Hesse, Bremen, and the Palatinate, where in 1563 the famous Heidelberg Catechism was produced). The Church or 'kirk of Scotland' as the Scots called it, was of course thoroughly Calvinistic in theology and in practice, having been modeled in many respects on the church in Geneva. The Puritans of England were Calvinists, of course, but the non-Puritan ministers of the Church of England were predominantly Calvinistic also, until the reign of King Charles II. From the time that the French edition of the Institutes were published in France, Calvin was the intellectual master of the Protestant movement in France, and the Huguenots (French Calvinists) grew rapidly in numbers in the 16th century. As early as 1558, there were no less than 400,000 adherents. Calvinism was also the predominant Faith in the northern part of the Netherlands (modern Holland). Calvin's missionary vitality led to the tremendous spread of Calvinism throughout Europe and by the 17th century it superseded Lutheranism as the most vibrant representative of Protestantism.

The Netherlands (modern Holland and Belgium) was composed of anciently independent provinces, where democracy and freedom of thought had grown since the time of the Middle Ages. Because of its industriousness, it was the richest and most thriving district of Europe. Among a people of such intelligence and independence, the doctrines of the Reformation found an early and earnest acceptance. This land of Thomas � Kempis, and Erasmus was fertile ground for the Reformation. Though the districts in the Netherlands were self-ruled, they were, unfortunately, under the 'protection' of the most unholy Roman emperor, Charles V. As early as 1521, only four years after Luther posted his 95 theses at Wittenburg, Charles V issued a severe edict against the Lutheran heresy. Anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Netherlanders were burned, strangled, beheaded or buried alive in obedience to the edicts of Charles V for such offenses as reading the Scriptures, refusing to worship graven images, or ridiculing the idea of the actual presence of Christ's body in the wafer.

It was Charles V who presided over the Diet of Worms, and who, at its convening, intended to have Martin Luther burnt at the stake for heresy. Luther escaped in the night and went into hiding, and was later protected by the German magistrates. Charles V's son, Philip II succeeded him and sought to outdo his father in exterminating the heretics from Netherlands. In 1568, he sanctioned a sentence, passed by the Inquisition of Madrid, which included the whole population of the Netherlands in the crime of treason against God and the King. The chief Inquisitor was zealous to carry out the sentence, remarking: "His majesty had rather see all his territories deserted and uncultivated, than to suffer one heretic to remain in them." The inquisition in the Netherlands grew in intensity, as it did in France, but despite this, the number of Protestant Christians grew. Under the leadership of William of Orange, the northern provinces revolted against this bloodthirsty tyranny and gained independence, forming a federation in 1579.

Arminianism

Jacobus Arminius was born in Holland in 1560, and grew up in a land that jealously guarded the faith for which so many had shed their blood. By this time, the majority of the Protestants in the Netherlands were Calvinists. Personal views of Scripture were allowed, but there was little toleration for anything but Calvinist views to be publicly expressed. But this was also a land where humanistic traditions from the Renaissance period had never died out and where Anabaptism was widely spread. Some people felt there needed to be a greater emphasis on the practical aspects of religion, less emphasis on finely distinguished doctrine, and a more tolerant attitude. Arminius, whose relatives were killed in the Netherlands' struggle for independence, was educated through the support of friends, at the University of Leyden.

Later Arminius went to Geneva, where he was greatly influenced by Beza. After Calvin's death, Beza assumed Calvin's mantle and took full leadership of the Academy at Geneva. It was Beza who developed the doctrine of predestination a step further than Calvin, in what is known as the supralapsarian view. This has to do with the order of divine decrees. Did God first "decree" election and reprobation (who would be saved and who would be damned) and then permit the fall as a means by which the decree could be carried out (the supralapsarian position, from Latin supra lapsum literally before the fall), or did he first permit that man would fall and then decree election as the method of saving some (infralapsarian from Latin infra lapsus, after the fall)?

In 1588, Arminius entered a pastorate in Amsterdam, winning distinction as a preacher and pastor. Later he was chosen to succeed Franz Junius as professor of theology in Leyden, where he remained till his death. Dirk Koornhert, a scholarly layman, who wrote against Beza and all strict predestinarians, rejected the notion of predestination, demanding a revision of the Belgic Confession (the Netherlands' own reformed confession, similar to Westminster Confession). Arminius, who was known as a strict Calvinist and an apt scholar, was called to reply to Koornhert and to defend the supralapsarian position. As he studied the problem, Arminius came to doubt the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination and to ascribe to man a freedom which, however congenial to Melanchthon (a disciple of Martin Luther) had no place in pure Calvinism. The essential dispute that Arminius had with Calvinism was regarding the doctrine of predestination. He did not deny predestination altogether, but denied that predestination was unconditional. A bitter controversy sprang up between Arminius and his supralapsarian colleague at the University of Leyden, Franz Gomarus, who was later the leading spokesman for the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort. The conflict between the two men resulted in a schism affecting the whole church of Holland.

One commendable legacy of Arminius was his call for theological perspective. During a period of intolerant dogmatism, when battle lines were drawn over subtle differences in creeds and confessions, Arminius wrote:

"There does not appear any greater evil in the disputes concerning matters of religion, than the persuading ourselves that our salvation or God's glory are lost by every little difference. As for me, I exhort my scholars, not only to distinguish between the true and the false according to Scripture, but also between the essential articles of faith, and the less essential articles, by the same Scripture."

Arminian Articles of Remonstrance

After Arminius' death, his views were championed and further developed and systematized by two men, Simon Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the followers of Arminius in 1610 set forth their views in five articles called Arminian Articles of Remonstrance, (a remonstrance is a reproof, to remonstrate is to reprove or correct) which gave them the name 'Remonstrants'. In substance the articles teach as follows:

1. God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
2. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
3. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and his followers were not Pelagians.)
4. All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
5. Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.

The Synod of Dort

The dispute soon became involved in politics. The Netherlands were divided between the supporters of "states rights", which included the wealthier merchant class (to which most Remonstrants belonged) and the national party (to which most Calvinists belonged). The National Party wished a national synod to decide the controversy. The states-rights party held that each province could decide its own religious affairs and resisted the proposal. By a coup d'etat the states-rights party was overthrown, Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded and Grotius was condemned to life imprisonment, from which he later escaped.

The Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. It lasted from November 1618 to May 1619, seven months. It was the largest and, next to the Westminster Assembly, the most imposing of all synods of the Reformed Churches. Besides representatives from the Netherlands, delegates from England, Scotland, the southern provinces of Germany, and Switzerland shared in its proceedings. Episcopius was the chief spokesman for the Remonstrants, the fire-breathing Gomarus led the charge against Arminianism. The Remonstrants requested an opportunity to discuss their views at the Synod, but were denied the opportunity. They soon realized that what they thought would be an open forum for theological discussion was in fact a hearing, and that they were in effect being tried for heresy. They were required to submit in writing statements in defense of the five articles of Remonstrance and points where they disagreed with the Belgic Confession. Finally, when they refused to go on if not given the opportunity to speak against the convictions of their opponents, the Remonstrants were expelled, and commanded not to leave Dort. Arminianism was unanimously rejected and condemned.

The Canon of Dort ("The Five Points of Calvinism")

Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants in a document known as the Canon of Dort, which declared:

• that fallen man was totally unable to save himself (Total Depravity)
• that God's electing purpose was not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)
• that Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for the elect (Limited Atonement)
• that the gift of faith, sovereignly given by God's Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect (Irresistible Grace)
• that those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the saints)

These doctrines have been called the five points of Calvinism and are often symbolized by the well known acronym TULIP. However, by themselves they are not a full exposition of Calvin's theology, but a caricature. The Canon of Dort is more properly viewed in its historical context as a theological response to the challenges of seventeenth century Arminianism. These doctrines, together with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, became the doctrinal basis of the Dutch Church. Not so extreme as some individual Calvinists - it did not adopt Gomarus supralapsarian views - the synod of Dort reached the high-water mark of Calvinistic creed-making.

The Calvinists were rather heavy-handed in their dealings with their 'Arminian' brethren. For refusing to subscribe to the Canon of Dort, some 200 ministers were deprived of their positions, eighty were banished from the country. Those who continued to minister were sentenced to life in prison. In 1621, a Lutheran professor at Wittenberg, in response to an overture of fraternity from the Dutch Reformed, writes these remarks:

"What good there is to be expected from such brethren, may easily be gathered from the Synod of Dort and their proceedings. The Calvinists had several disputes with the Arminians, particularly about the article of grace or election, in which the latter defended our opinion, and the former that of Calvin. In this controversy, the Calvinists showed so much heat, that, by a hasty decree of that synod, they condemned the Arminians and their doctrines, without allowing them to make any defense, depriving them of the exercise of their religion, and banishing their most eminent ministers from their country forever. Was not that a very brotherly proceeding? If they thus treated such who differed from them in one article, namely predestination, what must we expect who differ from them in so many?"

Later Arminianism

A period of persecution followed until 1632. Since then the state has extended toleration to the group. Since 1795, the Remonstrants have been recognized in Holland as an independent church body. The present membership is 21,500. It is thought by many historians that Arminianism was a revival of a humanistic, rational, and moral understanding of Christianity as represented earlier in the Netherlands by Erasmus. As a theological system Arminianism tries to mediate between the supralapsarianism of Beza, who taught that God willed the fall of man in order to accomplish his decrees, and the Pelagian view, which denied original sin, regarding grace as unnecessary for salvation. Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction: on the one hand it affirms predestination and grace, while on the other hand denying it or gutting it of any real significance by asserting that it is conditional upon man's free will. The theologian Otto Heick describes Arminianism as an oxymoron, an "absolute conditionalism":

"God in his decrees is conditioned by man's free will -

Man in his search for salvation is conditioned by God's grace".

The real significance of Arminianism lies in the wider field of English and American church history. The evangelical tenets of Arminianism found a forceful expression in the teachings of John Wesley and the Methodists, with its emphasis on the moral responsibility of man, the need of a new birth, and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.

Source

The Arminians

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
For our gospel came not unto you in word only,
but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost,
and in much assurance" (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5).

Arminianism derives its name from Jacobus Arminius, Professor of Divinity at Leyden University in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century. Arminius had studied theology under Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor. Beza was one of the stronger proponents of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. But Arminius's theology represented a retreat from this position. In some ways, Arminius's theology was actually a return to the position taken by Roman Catholicism at the Council of Trent. Naturally, Arminianism stirred heated controversy in the Reformed churches.

Arminius died in 1609, almost a decade before the controversy over his teachings peaked. That occurred in 1618, when a group of the late professor's followers, known as the Remonstrants, issued a protest in the form of Five Articles to the Reformed Church of Holland. Those articles were condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. The synod's five-point reply was an article-by-article refutation of the Remonstrants. (The position defined by the Synod has come to be known popularly as "the five points of Calvinism," though the five points were actually a response the Arminian Articles. Calvin himself never systematized his doctrine into five points).
The Canons of the Synod of Dordt thus constituted the Reformation's official reply to the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Church, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. Today Arminianism is surely the majority view in Protestant churches.

There are many strains of Arminianism. The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with semi-pelagianism (a compromise position between the radical free-will doctrine of Pelagius and the strong predestinarian views of Augustine). The tendencies of the Remonstrants and those who followed them were barely evangelical. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley adopted Arminian doctrine and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. Wesley's variety of evangelical Arminianism survives today in the Churches of the Nazarene and other conservative Wesleyan groups. Less evangelical varieties of Arminianism range all the way from the pietism of the Holiness movement to the Socinianism of liberal denominations.

Source