June 20, 2021



If we are to accept the Bible as the standard for all matters of faith, then we are to believe that there are seven main periods of church his­tory. The first of these (Ephesus, Rev. 2:1) can be denominated the Apostolic Period, beginning with the first local New Testament church called out in Matthew 10 and ending somewhere around 90 A.D. with the death of the last apostle. Church history, by Biblical definition, must be primarily the history of the local assemblies which start in the New Testament. Many of the church histories which have been written (Dollinger, Walker, Fisher, Neander, Mosheim, Schaff, Cairns, New­man, etc.) properly fall inside an area which should be called anti-church history. This should be anticipated, as most church historians elimi­nated the Bible as the principal guideline when they sat down to write. Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, eight volumes) is about as conscious of the power and authority of the Bible while he is research­ing and writing his history—a history of people who were supposed to have believed in it—as Madalyn Murray O’Hair or Westcott and Hort.

The second period of time (Smyrna, Rev. 2:8) corresponds gener­ally to the time between 90 A.D. and 325 A.D., and the third period (Pergamos, Rev. 2:12) from 325 A.D. to 500 A.D. In seeking brack­ets in which to place the historical events that deal with the church, the historians, saved and lost (of any profession), unconsciously adopt the brackets set up in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2-3) as found in the King James Authorized Version; they call the first section “Apos­tolic Fathers, ’ ’ the second section ‘ ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers, ’ ’ and the third section “Post-Nicene Fathers.’’ God often forces Bible rejecting “Christians” to adopt Biblical phrases, expressions, brackets, and sys­tems, and very often the Biblical time table. For example, when the Roman Catholic historians began to alter “The DARK Ages’’ to “The MIDDLE Ages ’ ’—an obvious attempt to wipe off the stigma of history, since the Roman Catholic church ruled all of Europe at that time, put­ting Europe into the most horrible condition it ever was in—they sim­ply blundered into a Bible trap. By calling 500-1500 the “MIDDLE Ages” they and the Protestant historians who followed their lead dated the Second Coming according to the charts found in Clarence Larkin’s Dispensational Truth (1918). These charts were constructed from the King James text. The Seven-Sevens system found in the Authorized Ver­sion (Lev. 23, 25; 2 Peter 3:8; John 2:1, Matt. 17, etc.) would put

five hundred years into the first “even watch,” one thousand years into the “midnight watch” and “cockcrowing watch,” and then the final five hundred years into the “morning watch” (Mark 13:35). Thus, any­one who plastered “MIDDLE” on the period running from 500-1000 A.D. admits (willingly or unwillingly—it makes no difference) that five hundred years are the “beginning,” and five hundred years will have to make the end. Latourette (A History of the Expansion of Christian­ity) stumbles into this trap as neatly and as blindly as any historian. He calls his second volume of church history “ONE THOUSAND YEARS of Uncertainty. ” The dates he gives are 500-1000 A.D.: the time that his church (Roman Catholic) was in control of Europe. This sets the time of the Second Advent of Jesus Christ at 2000 A.D. by those who don’t even profess to believe in an Advent, let alone a date for it. God has always been very adept at taking “the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Cor. 3:19). Recently the historians have sensed their clumsiness and have tried to pretend that the real DARK Age didn’t set in until around 800 A.D., and to slip out of the trap with a minimal loss of face, they have pretended that the Renaissance was not part of the “DARK Ages.”

The fourth period of church history (Thyatira, Rev. 2:18) runs roughly from Leo “the Great” to the times of the Crusades (approxi­mately 500-1000 A.D.). The fifth period (Sardis, Rev. 3:1) goes from 1000-1500 A.D., and the sixth period (Philadelphia, Rev. 3:7) will take history into the Reformation (1500-1900 A.D.). At around 1900 A.D. (1884 and 1901 will bracket the date) the seventh and final period (Laodicea, Rev. 3:14) begins. These seven church periods are denom­inated in the text of the Holy Bible (AV 1611) as: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Rev. 1:11; see Rev. 2, 3 in The Bible Believer’s Commentary on Revelation, 1970). According to the rules and laws governing man’s history already estab­lished by the Bible itself (concerning the way histories are to be written), each period must end in apostasy. Any serious student of the Bible knows as well as he knows his own name that every dispensation in history, as recorded by the Author of history, ends on a NEGATIVE note. This means that every Christian historian who wrote a church history with the “evolutionary” concept in mind (Augustine, Schaff, any of the popes, Neander, Latourette, etc.) approached his life work with a non- Biblical attitude and with a non-Biblical prejudice. Such a “start” would disqualify him from being able to interpret the facts before or after he found them.

The following history will not be attempted after the author has stripped himself of his Biblical convictions, which came from the Holy

Spirit’s presentation of Biblical truth. Rather, we shall take for granted that Satan has a lively interest in the affairs of men and has had his way with the majority of them since Genesis 3, and further, that he is alive and well and has his days of greatest power and authority yet ahead of him, not behind him (Rev. 13). From the standpoint of pre­senting the whole truth about these matters, most church historians are greenhorns. By this we mean that the author or authors pretend through­out their investigations and researches that no such being as Satan is operating in the sphere of church history, nor can anything be ascribed to him or his work (2 Cor. 4:4). Will Durant goes much further and presupposes that since Satan doesn’t exist, his work cannot be found anywhere in human history—secular or sacred. Either approach is fatal to interpreting the lessons of history, and if history cannot teach a man something, what can? After all, history is the recorded EXPERIENCES of the human race. If there is a being who deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9), he certainly is going to have no more trouble with a church historian than with any other sinner on the face of the earth. A history (secular or sacred) that refuses to deal with the problem of an intelli­gent, active, persistent, aggressive perversion of the TRUTH (Gen. 3) is not a history to be taken seriously by anyone who is engaged in find­ing the truth.

After all, the Christian is supposed to be acquainted with the One who is “the way, THE TRUTH, and the life” (John 14:6), and he has been given a Book (1 Thess. 2:13) which purports to be “THE TRUTH” (John 17:17). If “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17) in the believer was sent to guide and lead him “into all TRUTH” (John 16:13), what would he be doing taking any history book seriously where the author refused to deal with a worldwide, six millennia, supernatu­ral opponent of the truth who has the power and authority (Luke 4:6) to pervert the truth (2 Thess. 2:4-10) anytime he is given the opportunity (2 Tim. 2:26)? How does one account for church histories, written by professing Christians, that never indicate where this malevolent per­sonality worked, how he worked, when he worked, or whom he worked through? Does one suddenly drop his Biblical convictions about Satan when he begins to write a “church history”? Is a Christian supposed to have any convictions about Satan? Can they be put on and off like a pair of coveralls?

Obviously, the reason for not giving the devil “his due” when dis­cussing his world (2 Cor. 4:4) or his “Christs” (2 Cor. 11:1-14) is either ignorance of the devil and his wiles (Eph. 6:11)—which would be a deliberate sin for the child of God (2 Cor. 2:11)—or else the author

is in collusion with Satan due to cowardice and has attempted to sell books by “not taking sides” where Biblical issues appear in history. A church history which never involves Biblical issues is impossible to imagine. By maintaining a cool or neutral “objectivity” in dealing with the “facts” the reader will get the impression that all Satanic manifes­tations are due to ignorance and are merely human mistakes (see chapter 14, notes 121-125). One gets the most peculiar impression from read­ing the standard histories (Wells, Ridpath, Durant, Churchill, Caton, Rawlinson, Neander, Mosheim, Harnack, Dollinger, etc? that the authors either didn’t believe that Satan existed, or if they did, they didn’t want to antagonize him since he would probably control the publication and sales of their works. The standard historians (as the Alexandrian Cult, see chapter 5) present a beautiful, unified front of SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS: it may have been self-induced.

Now, no church historian or biographer can be completely neutral in his approach to his subject: if he were, he would be God. But many modern scientists and Bible teachers (see Hills’s work, Believing Bible Study, 1967) like to pretend that they have obtained this super “coolness” or objectivity like God. However, if there is one field where it is abso­lutely impossible for any sinner (saved or lost) to be neutral, it would be in a field that crossed Biblical truth at every other fence post. The bigoted infidels, agnostics, apostates, and atheists in The Age of Rea­son (Will Durant) and The Age of Enlightenment often exhibit in their writings the most vicious, subjective prejudices; many of the passages found in the works of Marx, Spinoza, Sartre, Dewey, Santayana, Hegel, Russell, Fichte, Nestle, Hort, Huxley, Darwin, Bakunin, and Nietzsche border on the lunatic fringe.

No one is completely free from “prejudice” (see Acts 22:2 and comments in that commentary), and the only fools to claim to be are educated fools who imagine that the length and breadth of their studies (which have seared their consciences and developed in them a “toler­ance” for ANYTHING) equips them to speak objectively. When you get to the point where you can tolerate ANYTHING—as long as it doesn’t hurt your income; oh yes, there are always “exceptions”!— you obviously can tolerate FALSEHOOD. Since the trail of the Serpent is found throughout 6,000 years of history (Gen. 3, Ezek. 28, Isa. 14, Job 1, Matt. 2, Rev. 13, etc.), we are certainly not going to be as stu­pid as some historians in assuming that he suddenly dropped dead in Matthew 27 and never showed up again in history. If God has a Book, Satan has a book (2 Cor. 11:4); if God has ministers, Satan has minis­ters (2 Cor. 11:15); if God has a Christ, the devil certainly will have

one (Matt. 24:5; Luke 21:8); and if God has a bride who is a church and a city (Rev. 21:9-10), certainly Satan is not going to call it quits at any point: he too will have a BRIDE (Rev. 17:1-5) who is a CHURCH and a city (Rev. 17:18).

In this history the King James 1611 AV will remain as the fixed standard and touchstone for the truth as well as for all “TRUTHS.” We will not depart from our previous position (1949-1980) taken in the writing of ten Bible commentaries in the Bible Believer’s series. Where distortion or perversion of the truth shows up in history, we will mention it and trace it to its source. Where opposition to the truth or persecution on those propagating it appears, we shall name names, list dates, and give locations. At no time should a Bible believer ever be found wandering around in the intellectual “boon docks” with Plato, Augustine, Aristotle, Socrates, or Hegel, asking little, stupid questions like “What is truth,’’ or “What is the supreme good?” These ques­tions are for the kiddies in the sandpile (Pilate, Heidegger, Tillich, Barth, Russell, Dewey, Marx, Freud, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc.). The Bible believer has the truth of God carnate (John 17:17) and Incarnate (John 1:1-3), and believing this, he is not going to make any ecumenical over­tures or adjustments to Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, Catholics, Moslems, Fundamentalists, or Liberals who think that a charitable tol­erance of error and a kindly acceptance of falsehood is the mark of a “godly” Christian. Christians are supposed to be faithful witnesses (1 Cor. 4:1-2), not professional politicians (1 Tim. 5:7, 17, 21). Con­formity to the world system (2 Tim. 4:10) is bad enough in a preacher or a Bible teacher (Rom. 12:1-3), without it being the guideline for a church historian who knows that “the only thing that men learn from history is that men never learn from history.”

Since all dispensations end on a negative note (Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Abramic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.), a student of history should be very attentive to any perversion or misapplication of the word of God in each period of church history, for apostasy cannot “spring out of the ground” (Job 5:6-7). A lie must have legs, a foundation, build­ers, promoters, advertisers, and buyers. The seeds of degeneration should be found in every period because, after all, it is the corruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23) in man that eventually puts him into the grave (Job 17:13-16 and comments in that commentary). Seed bearers, then, will be found in all seven periods of church history who will guarantee a downhill course for those who follow them (see chapters 4, 5).

Panegyrics and eulogies on “good men” are so plentiful in church history that you often wonder if the historian had ever noticed that no

writers in the Bible ever go overboard to brag about man s art, music, mind, knowledge, or even “man’s treatment of his fellow man.” When a Biblical writer documents Solomon’s writings (1 Kings 4:29-34), he does it in less than half a page. When Moses is bragged about (Deut. 34:10; Isa. 63:11), no writer goes into a long thing. “Evaluations” of the best men in the Bible (1 Kings 11:12, 34, 38) are always very brief and very conservative, and they are never lavish (1 Kings 4:34) unless they are discussing the individual’s relationship with God and what he did in line with what God wanted done. Paul is not “whistling Dixie” in his autobiography found in 2 Corinthians 11. In the same breath he mentions the devil working him over (2 Cor. 12:1-8). Paul wouldn’t think of disconnecting the devil with history, not even his own, personal history.

“Good, godly men, ” to quote the contemporary propaganda of the Alexandrian Cult (chapter 5), can always be found who are willing to attack the words of God (Peter, Matt. 16:22) and overthrow the final authority (1 Kings 13). There always has been a plethora of “good” men at hand, ready, willing, and able to be used by Satan for various purposes; and anytime Satan desires to pull off a lie, these men are the best “carriers.” A lie carried by Ignatius (see chapter 4, note 41) or Polycarp (see chapter 4, notes 42, 43) would always be more effective than a lie toted by Marcion or Celsus. Good, “godly” men who per­vert or alter the words of God are a good advertisement; more suckers will buy the product. Drunken atheists and immoral agnostics (or mod­em Liberal or Neo-orthodox theologians) cannot effectively carry a lie very far, at least not into the body of Christ. The best carriers of Bible perversion are always “in the camp” (Josh. 9:1-15). Goodness and god­liness (Noah and David) were never a foolproof protection against Satan anywhere in the history of revelation from the first line of Genesis 1:1 to the last battle of Revelation 20:9, at least not as far as the authority of the word of God is concerned. Catholic biographers of St. Francis, Thomas a Kempis, and St. Dominic are just as lavish in their praises of the Bible rejecting bigots as the Christian biographers of Westcott and Hort, A.T. Robertson, J.G. Machen, Gregory, Nestle, Green, Thayer, and John R. Rice. To presume that “goodness” and “godliness” in a dying sinner makes him more authoritative as a standard to follow than the God-breathed words of divine authority (see chapter 3) is to confess that one is really a sentimental “humanist” instead of a Bible believer. Many modern Fundamentalists (see Volume II) are Liberal Humanists when it comes to the issue of final authority. They will side with their friends (or those whom they “prefer” or “like”) where these stand clearly against what God said.

If a church historian is going to be as “objective” as some of the brethren profess to be, he certainly is not going to avoid censuring “good” and “godly” men where they speak and act for Satan in the interests of overthrowing the authority of God Almighty (see Satan’s Masterpiece: the New ASV, 1972).

The negative content of a church history written with such an approach will be vast, and this is apparent to anyone (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1970). For this reason we should never expect such a work to be a “howling success” with any compromiser or world pleaser, whether he be a Christ-rejecting Liberal or an apostate Fundamentalist (John 17:16). We shall deal primarily with church history and not ANTI - church history (the history of Roman Catholicism) or SEMI-church history (the history of political, social, and economic movements which affected the church). May God the Holy Spirit guide and lead the reader into all truth (John 16:13) so that he may learn more from history than its standard lesson: that the only thing men learn from history is that men never learn from history. May God protect him from having to repeat the lessons of history because he has not learned them properly. Church history is a forewarning and forearming of every Bible believer in the world against the foremost enemy of religious liberty the world ever hosted: ROMAN CATHOLICISM.


“Let them bring forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come” Isaiah 41:22

The need for a Biblical history of the New Testament church is apparent to anyone who reviews the parade of church histories that can be found in the average “Christian” bookstore in the twentieth cen­tury. What these histories have written about is largely ANTI-church history; they have taken for granted that the ecclesiastical monster which controlled Europe during the Dark Ages was “the church,” and there­fore a history about Roman Catholicism would be a church history. You may as well suppose that Rome did not imprison Peter, exile John, behead James, whip and crucify Christ, and execute the apostle Paul.

It goes without saying that our brief two volumes of Church His­tory (making up less than 1,400 pages of material) can give little more than a sketchy outline of events; however, we will try to put enough “meat on the bones” to keep the reader in touch with true apostolic practices from 33 A.D. to 1980, and also to show him the difference between the Alexandrian line of apostate Fundamentalists that begins with Clement and Origen (chapter 5) and runs up to the New ASV (and the faculty members of Bob Jones University, Vol. II), and the line of Bible believing witnesses that runs from John and Ignatius (chapters 3, 4) up to Carl Hatch and Jack Hyles.

All apostasy begins with questioning what God said (Gen. 3:1), and all men who promote or tolerate (or aid or encourage) apostasy recommend conflicting authorities so that they themselves (or their friends or employers) can become the final authority. This will be so apparent in what follows that further comment should be unnecessary at this time. Conflicting authorities are set up in church history by Chris­tian scholars for the purpose of splitting and dividing the body of Christ and bringing it under the dominion of either an authoritative body of scholars (a school) or an authoritative ecclesiastical organization (a church). The Alexandrian Cult controlled the Roman Catholic church from 400 A.D. to the present, and in this century it controls every major Christian college and seminary in the United States, England, and Europe by means of the faculty members in those institutions. If the student

of history is often surprised to find Bible believing “soul winners” pay­ing, supporting, and promoting these apostates in their own institutions, he must remember that the American school system (Federal and pri­vate) is controlled in the classroom by the members of the Alexandrian Cult (see Vol. II). They will tolerate no interference by “soul winnners” in their efforts to indoctrinate every student with the teaching that there is no Book on this earth that is the absolute, final authority for anything.

Einstein (1879-1955) and the Logical Positivists (as all relativists) taught that all truth was relative. Relative truths are the “values” taught in the Federal school system to inculcate into every socialist cell the teaching that there is no final, absolute, MORAL AUTHORITY or eth­ical authority. This is called “values clarification” (1980) by the NEA. It means that the student must be reduced to the place where he has to look to the State (the government) for guidance and support as a “savior.” This deterioration in the individual students in the Federal schools is obtained by a simple expedient: conflicting authorities. By presenting multiple authorities (see how it is done in the modem Sun­day School with anASV, RSV, NewASV, RV, NewRSV, etc.), the Gov­ernment steps in as the final and deciding authority. Relative truth is the doctrinal creed of the president of Bob Jones University,1 and he will sign his name to this “conviction.” When we find men in church history like Torrey and Spurgeon occasionally yielding to the desper­ate temptation to back up a Bible truth by altering the words in the Bible,2 we must remember that the old nature in David and Hezekiah was no different from the old nature in Peter or Paul. The contemporary her­esy to the effect that if a man is “godly” or “separated” and “stands for the fundamentals,” his old nature is inoperative when moving into the area of Biblical authority, is a genuine heresy in itself (see chapter 9) and constitutes one of the most dangerous teachings in the history of false doctrine. The alibi to sin used by Bob Jones, III, (see note 1) and Dr. Wisdom (see note 2) is that the men sinning are “reverent Biblicists” or “men of God.” I don’t recall where any alibi for sin­ning was justified by any man’s character anywhere in the Bible: this is something new “under the sun.”

No godly man is immune from seeking to overthrow the authority of the universe when it comes to desiring to have his way instead of God’s way (Isa. 53:6). The modem Bible reviser, for example, who refuses to face this Biblical fact (2 Tim. 3:3, 4; 2 Sam. 11; Dan. 2:46; Gen. 26:7) and deal with it is self-deceived and has sinned against God (Prov. 8:8, 9). Relative truths instead of absolute truth is the founda­tion of every system of scientism, materialism, and evolution on this

earth. Those who can’t stand to be set adrift in this flotsam and jetsam of “relativity” invent parties (Fascism or Nazism), or authoritative economic systems (Communism or Capitalism), or authoritative intel­lectual systems (Positivism, Platonism, Hedonism, etc.).

This church history will approach the subject of the New Testa­ment church from the standpoint of one final, infallible authority, and where this authority is questioned by any school, or any church, or any political party, or any body of scholars, we will make note of it. There will be no pretending, for example, that the “problem” in the church since 1611 has anything to do with any “verbally inspired, plenary originals” that no one ever found. There will be no pretending that the last seven “reliable versions” in “modern language” (RV, ASV, New ASV, NIV, RSV, New RSV, Living Bible, etc.) accomplished anything for America but an increase in dope traffic, illegitimate births, legalized pornography and prostitution, social acceptance of sex perverts, destruc­tion of the public school system, a government takeover of churches and private schools, and a five hundred percent increase in the crime rate accompanied by more gross ignorance of the contents of the Bible than at any time in the history of the country.

The reader is encouraged to check all the notes in this work with their sources. May he understand that the “faith of our fathers” is liv­ing still “in spite of dungeon, fire, and sword” and that the “dungeon, fire, and sword” are the only weapons by which any apostate church can conquer a country made up of Bible readers who believe the Bible. There is no country on the globe in either hemisphere that was a Bible reading or Bible believing country when Communism took it over. Can­ada and Mexico fell out of that category one hundred to five hundred years ago, and Spain and Italy have not been in that category for over fifteen centuries. There is no way you can fool a Bible believing peo­ple about Communism, like Michael (Martin) Luther King, Jr.; Franklin D. Roosevelt; or Abraham Lincoln: you only fool a sucker who is believ­ing what he reads in newspapers and “history books” into thinking they were “Americans. ” There is no way you can fool a Bible believer into thinking that Communism and Catholicism are not “bosom buddies,” and that Califano, head of the HEW in America (1979), is leading the largest practicing Communist cell in the Western Hemisphere: with that stuff you only con some “touch” who believes what he sees on televi­sion and hears on the radio.

Our constitution is a Book, not an essay by John Locke or a document from the French Revolution (see Vol. II). We get our “Bill of Rights” from Romans-Philemon, and when those books are aban­

doned for “human rights,” there are no rights left but the civil rights and social equality found in any concentration camp. Church history shows that whenever and wherever the Book is abandoned or disre­garded or questioned or doubted or perverted, social, political, economic, and religious disasters follow (Gal. 6:7). Any authority accepted as an authority higher than the Book will inevitably lead to imprisonment, starvation, torture, demonism, and death. Church history is a demon­stration of that truth: the truth that even where a church professes to believe the Book and professes to be “going by the Book,” that it means absolutely nothing at all if they don’t really believe the Book. Eventu­ally the chickens of doubt and infidelity come home to roost, and with them comes litigation, foreclosures, taxes, loss of private property and liberty, arrests, death, torture, war, starvation, and demonism.

Every destructive and painful thing on this earth in 1980 came from a transaction that began by questioning the words that God had spoken (Gen. 3:1).

That one basic, bedrock truth of the Bible ought to be enough, stand­ing alone, to convince every child of God (educated or uneducated) that it is a dangerous thing to tamper with a Book that God called into exist­ence, used, honored, established, and blessed beyond any Book on this planet. Readers of The Bible Believer's Commentaries (Genesis, Exodus, Job, Proverbs, Matthew, Revelation, the Minor Prophets, Acts, etc.) are well-acquainted with our starting point in writing about anything. We begin by setting up the one absolute, final, and infallible authority that God has given us (the Holy Bible), and then we proceed to judge all data, facts, findings, theories, opinions, and ideas by that standard. That is, we habitually practice what Christian universities and semi­naries only profess to practice and actually do NOT.3 We never abandon the Bible as the ultimate standard forjudging truths simply because some educated idiot or group of educated idiots has eliminated it from his “field” of study. We believe that what the Book says, where it touches anthropology, integration, geology, prophecy, civil liberties, public speaking, health foods, national politics, the social sciences, psychol­ogy, and Hebrew grammar, is just as valid as where it touches history, ethnology, dogmatic theology, historical exegesis, higher criticism, New Testament introduction, art, music, sports, or cooking. No real Bible believer is going to lay his Bible down when writing a church history; as a matter of fact, he will need the Book more in this field than in any field of research outside of Biblical theology and textual criticism.

Our aim will be to show the Bible believer in the Laodicean church period (Rev. 3:14) that there has existed from early times (33 A.D.)

to the present time a continuous chain of Christians who believed the Book they had was the word of God and were actively engaged in try­ing to convert people to the truths found in that Book, and more exactly to the very Author of that Book. These Christians throughout church history often vary in some of their doctrinal beliefs, and they also have no one name by which they can be identified through twenty centuries (see chapter 6, note 78). They were never called “Christians” since the time that the popes became “the princes of the church” (570 A.D., see chapter 5), and later the term “Christian” came to be used as a label for International Socialists who professed to be the “peacemakers” of Matthew 5:9 (Kagawa, Pike, Peale, Blake, et al.), revolutionaries (Castro; Gandhi; M.L. King, Jr.; et al.), and Communists (Abraham Lincoln, Russell, Dewey, Reuther, FDR, et al.), as well as Catholics, Protestants, and Greek Orthodox. The term “Christian” was a signif­icant surname in Acts 11:26, but with the advent of Einstein’s nonsense into the college curriculum (and the inanities of the Logical Positivists from Vienna), the word “Christian” came to mean no more than “scuba diver” or “trapeze artist.” In the Associated Press words mean anything you want them to mean; this is also true in the National Education Asso­ciation. The term “Christian,” today, means a nice Socialist who believes in making a good living by getting along with everyone, including the devil. Politicians are all “Christians” by definition, and so are all the Communists engaged in leveling all classes to the lowest common denominator: a mongrel mass. The purpose of this is so that they can “share” with anyone—including the devil.

If the elimination of absolute truth is the desired end of modem Christian education, then Christian education is just one more tool in the hand of International Socialism. A modern school, as we have said, is set up to produce the maximum amount of unbelief in the student in regards to absolute authority. When an unsaved young person goes off to a school (Christian or otherwise), he is placed in an area where one Book is no longer the final authority, for the men who teach him that Book (saved or lost) do not believe that it is an infallible authority, nor do they believe it is the final authority as their school may or may not profess: from here on, for the student, it is a matter of “guesswork” on the basis of “preference” and “considered opinion.” The student graduates (public or private school) as any unsaved Liberal graduates from any state university in New York or California, and he goes out into the world with no final authority. As soon as he steps off the campus the potential and prospective “final authorities” are waiting to embrace and subvert him with open arms and jaws: the UN, the Welfare State,

the Vatican, the Scholars Union, the HEW, the Communist Party, the drug culture, etc. When they pin him to the mat, the “grad” must con­fess (if he has any honesty left after four years of brainwashing by the Alexandrian Cult) that he has no final authority: final authority is only a matter of opinion and preference (see note 1).

There are two things about church historians that must be kept in mind, in addition to their proclivities to avoid giving Satan credit for anything that happened in church history for twenty centuries. The first of these we may call “The Pauline Obsession,” which is the tendency for historians to rig up little “all-star teams” where the quarterback is Paul, the running backs are John and Peter, the center is Chrysostom, the guards are Luther and Wesley, the tackles Whitefield and Calvin, and the ends are BEECHER and FOSDICK. These cute little “groups” are constructed on the idea that as you approach the time of the writer the Pauline types have to get smoother and smoother and slicker and slicker until finally they no more resemble Paul (or Luther) than they resemble Peter the Great or Genghis Khan. The Pauline Obsession is a psychosis that comes from two perverse tendencies residing in the old nature of all the historians. The first of these is the tendency to view Paul as a writer and a theologian apart from his ministry (see Acts 20:21-24 and comments in that commentary). Stam, Baker, O’Hair, Bullinger, Greaterex, Ballinger, and Moore are perfect examples of “Fundamentalists” whose ministries are no more Pauline than the min­istries of Copeland, Gormann, C.W. Burpo, Dunn, Jimmy Swaggert, or Oral Roberts; however, they fancy they are Pauline because they have extracted two truths from something Paul WROTE (Eph. 3:1-6 and 2 Cor. 5:20). Once Paul has been degraded to the professor’s chair or the chair of the “learned Doctor of Divinity,” he must keep com­pany with tenderfeet who are no more his spiritual “match” than Demas or Diotrephes.

The term “Pauline Obsession” is chosen for want of a better one to describe the peculiar attitude with which the majority of Bible scholars, historians, and theologians approach Paul’s character and work. The tendency is to build a history of doctrine or collections of theologies and confessions, supposing that Paul was primarily an “original thinker”; that is, a theologian who developed original doctrines. This obsession to make an academic theologian out of Paul and then com­pare his “theology” with subsequent ones has obscured in every age the course that the Gospel took following the book of Acts. This point cannot be emphasized too strongly if a correct analysis is to be made of church history. The book of Acts shows an intensely practical peo-

pie going about to fulfill an intensely practical commission and obtaining intensely practical results. If it is possible to trace the real history of the New Testament local church, we must seek for Bible believers who are engaged in preaching, not silly faculty members who are trying to figure out “what was in the mind of the authors when they wrote the originals, etc.’’

The Pauline Obsession can be illustrated in a number of ways:

A. By promiscuously teaming him up, as a man, with men who were unlike him in every respect. For example: “Luther...Calvin... Thomas Aquinas"4 or “John...Paul...Luther...Augustine"5 or again, “Augustine...Luther...Calvin...Paul...Moses.. .Hodge... Warfield. ’’6 One “all-star team” put Luther and Calvin in the same bracket with Loyola.'1 These classifications, however innocently constructed, reveal the deep-seated obsession of someone either to be like Paul or else to make Paul (of Loyola) into something he was NOT.

B. By reducing the Pauline epistles to mere “Pauline” epistles and ignoring the fact that they are the inspired scriptures; they picture what GOD thinks about salvation, justification, regeneration, eternal secu­rity, and the Second Coming: they are NOT just “Paul’s theology.”

C. By overlooking or ignoring (or neglecting, or pushing aside, according to the subjective point of view) the results of Paul’s doctrines and beliefs. The beliefs of Machen, Warfield, Wuest, Robertson, Schaff, and the Lockman Foundation produce no city-shaking revivals, no aban­donment of false gods, no arrests or imprisonments, no whippings or revilings, and no establishment of New Testament churches. They produce a few baby sprinkling, A-millennialists and dead-orthodox Con­servatives who could no more preach on a street corner than on a surfboard.

The first of the three things listed above (A.) is the most danger­ous of the three, and here have been enumerated only the mildest of a series of “all-star teams.” Some classifications run “Moses...Jesus... Paul... Luther...Barth...Kierkegaard,” as though they had a common bond of Biblical affinity or theological virility. Barth is about as “Pauline” as Catherine de’Medici.

Luther is usually classified by dead-orthodox theologians as a theo­logian (along with Paul), although a professor at Stamford University stated that Luther was not a theologian and had not even made a thorough study of the theology of his times.8 (It is accepted by most historians that Paul did not write his revelations in a systematic or theological sense.) Seeberg says, “Luther created a new church, Melanchthon estab­lished a theology in harmony with it.”9 Gaussen omits Paul while list­

ing Origen, Eusebius, Calvin, and Hengstenberg. Some of the classifi­cations are sound, for example: “With Augustine and John Calvin, Tho­mas Aquinas shares the distinction of being one of the three master theo­logical minds of the world. ”10 Not a man in the list was a soul-winning evangelist, every man in the list worshipped philosophy, and every man in the list would kill a Christian as quick as look at him if that Christian didn’t line up with a Church-State theology (see chapters 6, 7).

Carl Henry ties Barth up with the theological line containing Berkhof, Engelder, Murray, and Chafer.11 This is sound; not a man in the list was a soul-winning preacher or Bible believing teacher.

Now, how could anyone drag Paul into such a lineup? And if he is left out, how can such a lineup be identified with New Testament Christianity? The Apostle to the Gentiles was Paul, who wrote letters to the New Testament churches. To read the New Testament, one would think that Paul had very little in common with the average Bible reviser or theologian. He is seen preaching on street corners and being stoned (Acts 14:19). He is found reasoning “of righteousness, temperance, and judgment’’ before a governor (Acts 24:25). He is jailed, whipped, shipwrecked, persecuted, and treated for all the world like a renegade anarchist (Acts 16:24; 24:5). If he were to appear preaching on the streets of the shopping centers and malls in America today at, say, Pensacola, Florida; Greenville, South Carolina; Chattanooga, Tennessee; or Spring­field, Missouri, would the “scholars” be so eager to include him among their renowned “theologians” and “qualified Biblicists”?

As Bible believing street preachers, Paul and his companions turned the world upside down with their preaching and their teaching: not merely the scholastic world, but the social world, the business world, the artisan world, and the imperial world. This must be firmly kept in mind when tracing the path of the New Testament church through the centuries.

The Pauline Obsession is also illustrated by the manner in which historians and theologians treat the Epistles, dealing with them as though they were only a “theology,” opposing or analogous to, say, “Johan- nine” or “Petrine” theology. A few illustrations will suffice.

1. In Revelation and Reason, Brunner confines New Testament preaching to “the picture of Jesus in the Gospels.”12 How about the “picture” in the Pauline Epistles, or how about at least admitting that the four Gospels do not contain the complete “picture”?

2. Henry Swete says of John, “The writer’s Christology leads him to....”13 But the “writer” of the book of Revelation is the third Person of the Godhead. In line with Swete’s semi-infidelity is W.M. Ramsay,

a typical dead orthodox apostate.14 Ramsay says that “the symbolism’’ of the book of Revelation was “imposed on the writer...by the rather crude literary model which he imitated, in obedience to prevalent Jew­ish fashion.” Is there anyone reading this page stupid enough to believe that the Holy Spirit had to “imitate a literary model” because it was “the Jewish fashion”? Ramsay did.

3. Geerhardus Vos, a reputable “Conservative,” says that “these statements of Paul were made under the stress of a...PHILOSOPHY. ”,s And again: “Paul’s PHILOSOPHY was a partial one. ” We are to believe that Paul “worked out” his “philosophy” from a retrospective stand­point and was at least correct “within the limited sphere in which he propounded it.”16

Well, it has proved to be correct for nineteen centuries in any sphere.

You see, Geerhardus Vos (a reputable, “reverent,” Conservative Biblicist, etc.) is intimating that the Pauline Epistles are only Paul’s theology (his ideas about doctrine), not the theology of the Holy Spirit.

The last part of the Pauline Obsession (for that is the best term to describe this attitude) is the overlooking of the results of Paul’s applied theology. The naivete of many writers in supposing that it is possible to rank Paul with Spinoza, Barth, Hegel, Tillich, or Augustine is abso­lutely ridiculous. It was Luther who said that the “Gospel” was the “preaching and crying of the grace of God,” and that it stood not in books and letters but more in oral preaching: “a voice that resounds into the entire world and is publicly cried abroad.”17 “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel” is not a command to revise the God- honored text of the Reformation.

The use of strong adjectives in drawing the line between the thinkers who were doers, and the thinkers who wanted to be LIKE the doers, will frequently be resorted to in this history. This is absolutely neces­sary if one is to follow the persecuted, preaching, New Testament local church. The outstanding names involved in church history have been handled by many writers in such a way (though accidentally, perhaps) as to cast a New Testament halo over some characters (see chapters 14, 17) who were no more “Pauline” in stature than Judas Iscariot.

The second thing we will observe about all church historians is the difficulty they seem to have in locating “heretics” (see chapter 9). They seem to think that if a man believes the Apostles’ Creed—as all Papists do—that anything he writes to discredit the work of the Holy Spirit or to distort the Biblical convictions of a Bible believer is to be taken as historical fact. The historians, especially Philip Schaff, have a funny way of going half blind when they deal with historical fact that runs

contrary to their own particular religious hallucinations (see chapter 6, note 40). When Philip Schaff presents the “facts” that deal with the history of the New Testament Greek text,18 he disqualifies himself as a historian (which he was) and as a Bible reviser (which he was). Philip was the head of the American Revision Committee of 1901 that altered the King James Bible in more than 30,000 places. Schaff, try­ing to factually document the teaching of Pre-millennial believers in the early church, is like a Jew trying to document the orthodox beliefs of Adolph Hitler. It is even more ridiculous when Schaff attempts to justify his own “christening” in the “laver” where he was sprinkled (see chapter 9, note 92). Church history, from the standpoint of a Bible rejecting, A-millennial baby sprinkler is certainly not going to be a very objective church history because Bible believers are found baptizing adults, standing by the Book, and preaching the Pre-millennial return of Christ (see chapter 7, notes 34-40). Subjectivism—if not downright fanaticism— is not limited to writers like Froom, Sozomen, Mosheim, Orchard, and Armitage.

When George Dollar1’ lists the leading Fundamentalists in the back of his book on church history, he skips from Roloff (RO) to Ryle (RY). Evidently George couldn’t find a Bible believing Fundamentalist in Europe or America whose last name began with RU. Since George was honest enough to note that the first Fundamental Congress, which met to set up the “Magna Charta of Fundamentalism,” taught that there should be a “constant rejection of man’s opinions in ALL MATTERS OF TRUTH and constant reliance on plain scripture,”20 we are rather surprised to learn that George couldn’t find anyone in the twentieth cen­tury who believed exactly that—at least no one whose last name began with RU. George must not have looked too hard.

When Elgin Moyer wrote his work, Who Was Who in Church History (Moody Press, 1962), he omitted the man who set up four thou­sand Fundamental Baptist churches in America and forced Bob Jones, Jr., and Bob Jones, III, to change the faculty leaders of the staff at Bob Jones University from A-millennial Presbyterians (Whitte, Brokenshire, Payne, etc.) to Pre-millennial Baptists. He also omitted the greatest Bible scholar America ever produced: the man who taught Hal Lindsey, Salem Kirban, Weber, Jack Hyles, John R. Rice, Charles Fuller, Dr. DeHaan, Theodore Epp, Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, and Perry Rockwood everything they knew about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. These two omissions from Who Was Who were J. Frank Norris and Clarence Larkin. How did Moyer overlook these Bible believing Baptists when he did not fail to list Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Ingersoll, Schiller, Fichte,

Voltaire, and Descartes in Who Was Who in Church History? George Dollar and Elgin Moyer seem to have a little trouble in tracing the “apos­tolic thread,” at least when it gets so close that it might reveal their own anti-Biblical position—Dollar was on the staff of BJU when he wrote—or their unwillingness to give credit where credit was due (Rom. 13:7). The line of history always runs right up to the time of the writer in the twentieth century, so when he sits down to write he pretends that the line went off in a different direction than it had been going for nine­teen centuries. Dollar began his work with a chapter entitled “THE ATTACK ON THE BIBLE” and stated that a Fundamentalist was one who believed in the absolute authority of the word, and where the opin­ions of men differed with it, they were to be rejected.21 George Dollar has never taught at a school a day in his life that believed anything of the kind, and he is not teaching in a school like that now. If you don’t believe it, write him and ask him. There is nothing like “objective neu­tralism,” is there?

Nothing is funnier to read than the average church history where the writer launches out boldly with Peter, James, and John, rides through the breakers with Chrysostom, Ignatius, Polycarp, and St. Pat, sails through the stormy Dark Ages with Berthold, Joachim, Columba, and Savonarola, sights land with Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, and Huss, steams into port with Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, Moody, Spurgeon, and Sunday, and then (God help you, child!) anchors with Beecher, Afman, Truett, Chafer, and Weatherhead! The ship must have floundered on a land mine while it was docking.

We will put great emphasis upon practical theology throughout church history rather than dogmatic theology, and greater emphasis on the lives of obedient believers than on the writings of “Christian” theologians. We will be looking for Spirit-filled evangelists and mis­sionaries, not garbage-filled bishops and archbishops. We will be more partial to Bible believing “heretics” (see chapter 9) than “Orthodox” murderers. Church history, to be an honest history—not an anti-church history—must be an extension of the acts of the Holy Spirit who con­tinues to operate in church history after the Acts of the Apostles cease (see Acts 28:31 and comments in that commentary).



The Nature of Church History

“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto , and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”

Revelation 1:11

The only “apostolic” succession that history recognizes is a suc­cession of people converted under the apostles (Acts 1-28) who passed on to one another (2 Tim. 2:2) the seven great New Testament “mysteries” (1 Cor. 4:1-2) given to the body of Christ (1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 11:25; Col. 1:27; 1 Cor. 15:49-52; Rev. 17:5; Eph. 5:32; and 2 Thess. 2:7). Since the signs ceased when God’s ministry to Israel terminated (1 Cor. 1:22), the apostolic “signs” (2 Cor. 12:12) did not exist much beyond 100 A.D. at the latest, for nearly all those who were converted under the apostles (Mark 16:17) had died out by this time; to be converted under an apostle while God was still dealing with Israel, one would have to be converted before Acts 28, that is, before 61-62 A.D. But even then there is little chance that anyone had the signs as late as 100 A.D., for Paul himself is losing the signs at the end of his own ministry around 68 A.D. (note carefully 1 Tim. 5:23 and 2 Tim. 4:20). This means that in order to counterfeit the power and authority of the New Testament apostles, a modern apostate must do one of two things.

One: follow Rome and pretend that the signs, power, and author­ity given to Peter extend beyond his own converts (33-70 A.D.) through the Italian politicians at Rome—all are Italians from Adrian (1159) to the Communist Pope John Paul II (1979)—ida a bachelor priesthood of professional politicians. To do this the “signs” and “miracles” would have to be invented, but Rome would never hesitate to invent anything

if it would expedite its political control over foreign nations through its “membership.”1

Two: follow the twentieth century “Charismatics” and pretend that a “Second Pentecost” is occurring (after 1,947 barren ones—the Holy Spirit did not come down on any Pentecost from 33 A.D. to 1980 A.D.) and that God has decided that the signs (1 Cor. 14:22) are no longer for unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 1:22) but for Gentile ecumenical parties engaged in setting up one church under the Antichrist (Rev. 17). Any Bible believer who studies the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15) and believes the Bible (1 Thess. 2:13) knows that either of these stratagems amounts to noth­ing more than religious buffoonery. There is no “apostolic succession” of apostolic signs, miracles, and wonders in church history; if there is any “succession” of anything, it will have to be a succession of practice by those who attempted to obey the orders set forth for the Gentiles in Matthew 28:19, 20; 2 Corinthians 5:20; Acts 27:25; Galatians 5; Romans 10-14; Colossians 1-2; and Romans 3. That is, the main test of “orthodoxy” in a real church history would have to do with belief in the Bible and application of that Book to the contemporary scene in which the believer is to be found in each century. “Creeds” amount to little or nothing if they omit the Gospel Imperative to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel. ” “THE GOSPEL” in Roman Catholic mythology can mean anything from pretending that intoxicating liquor is Christ’s blood to “goodwill trips” to Communist countries (Pope John Paul II, Jan.-Feb. 1979) to encourage class warfare: the AP called Pope John Paul’s tour “SPREADING THE GOSPEL. ” There is no record in three years of the pope’s travels that he preached or taught “the gospel” (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-10) one time to anyone, in public or private, in any country he visited. “Creeds” are less than worthless when they are based on a Book that the Christian professes to believe in when he has never seen that Book, or read it, or heard it preached.2 The most hypocritical liar you ever met in your life is a Christian scholar who recommends as an infallible standard for your life and ministry a standard which neither he nor anyone else has seen a day in his life.3

One will notice in studying this history that “creeds” and “councils” rarely settle anything. Since every reference to a “coun­cil” in Mark, Luke, John, and Acts is a reference to a Bible-rejecting group dedicated to the suppression of the truth (see Acts 6:12 and com­ments in that commentary), the emphasis which historians lay upon these matters (see Seeberg, Neve, Ayer, LaGarde, Drummond, Schaff, et al.) is largely wasted paper. Practice has always taken the precedence

over profession (Matt. 7:21), whether a man is saved or lost (James 2:18). Where both match, there is no problem, but when we perceive, for example, “councils” of “Christian leaders gathered together to shut the doors of churches because they won’t submit to an outside ecclesi­astical authority,”4 there is not much point in taking their “profession” too seriously. Just because a man professes to believe that “the Bible is the word of God” doesn’t mean that he believes anything of the kind.3 Profession doesn’t end the matter.

Councils and creeds may settle the matters of outward profession of faith in regard to what the group of Christians is supposed to believe; as to how many of them believe it (if it is so) or as to how much of it they should have believed to start with (in case it isn’t so) is “some­thing else.” The infamous Council of Trent (1546) stated that every Roman Catholic Congressman in America (in 1980 or any other time) believes that Johnny Carson; Abraham Lincoln; President Carter; Benny Goodman; Dolly Parton; Billy Graham; and Martin Luther King, Jr., are under the curse (anathema) of God.6 Does any Catholic in America profess to believe that? If he did, would he let you know it? Would your morning newspaper print it? If a Catholic didn’t know that he was supposed to believe that, would his church inform him that unless he believed that, he was cursed, too?1 Of course not. Why tell the truth and destroy your chances of taking over a country? “Creeds” are con­venient props to be produced when necessary. Creeds and councils are usually politically motivated. They are carried out by the “chief high muckety-mucks”8 and rarely have anything to do with Bible believing Christianity in practice.

Our history will deal with practical theology: the practical outwork­ing of Bible truth in the lives of those who believed it. They (as Bob Jones, Sr., used to state it so well) believed that “whatever the Book said was so, even if they didn’t all agree as to what it said.” In such matters the man who leaves the words in the context in which they stand, without adding or subtracting from them, is always closer to the truth than the man who consults five translations to make the words “teach” what he has already decided they “mean. ”

Sometimes these Bible believing people are called Novatians, some­times Donatists, sometimes Paulicians, Bogomiles, Bulgarians, or other names. They are always associated with HERESY. Their contempo­raries in the world (and of the world) always escape the charge. The charge of HERESY is the standard charge from 60 A.D. (Acts 24:14) to the present against any group of Bible believers who will not ‘ ‘knuckle down” to the religious “powers that be.” No Bible believing group

ever escaped the charge (Vaudois, Brethren, Paterines, Cathari, Hugue­nots, etc.). To the modern, apostate Fundamentalist a genuine Bible believer is a “heretic” because he will not succumb to the propaganda put out by the faculty members of Christian colleges and seminaries that came straight out of Hell through Genesis 3:1 and Westcott and Hort.9 Bible believers have always been considered to be “heretics” by Rome.10 In our own “witch hunt” for “heretics” (see chapter 9) we will assume the position that a heretic is one who professes to believe the Bible is the “verbally inspired word of God” when he doesn't have ANY Bible that that is true of, and then he adds or subtracts from the Bible he has in order to teach something that is or isn’t so. In short: A BIBLE-PERVERTING LIAR. Our definition here will go much deeper and cut much closer to the bone than the ancient definitions which assume that one must deny some “fundamental of the faith” to be a “heretic” (Acts 24:14). We maintain that the “fundamentals” can be found in nearly every pagan religion," so belief in them is not a unique or distinguishing mark of a real Christian.

The thing that marks out the real “Christian” is his belief in what God said (Gen. 3:1; 1 Thess. 2:13; Acts 27:25; John 8:47). A real Chris­tian will not ADD to what God said (Prov. 30:6), nor will he subtract from it (Rev. 22:19). No “fundamental of the faith” is as important as the source it came from; if that source is corrupt, the fundamental could be just as corrupt. We all agree that certain “fundamentals” are true, but they are only true because God the Holy Spirit said they were true (2 Peter 1:2b, Ps. 119:89). Your opinion about whether or not they are true is immaterial; if God said it (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9), it is so (Num. 23:19), and if God said it in sarcasm (Matt. 23:24; Amos 4:4), He intended you to take it that way.

In this history we will see a cycle unraveling before our eyes that will repeat itself several times; at least enough times so that we can identify it as a law of history that operates independently of anyone’s analysis of it or their feelings about it. The cycle goes like this:

1. Preaching, which may be called “Evangelism.”

2. Teaching, which may stand for “Education.”

3. Culture, which means the introduction of science, philosophy, and tradition (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20) into the teaching (or education).

4. Apostasy, which includes ecumenical overtures (compromise) with pagan religious systems or unsaved people.

5. Paganism, which means the original condition the populace was in before they were “evangelized” (point 1).

These five steps will be found in a reoccurring cycle throughout

the entire history of the church, and they may match another format which runs as follows:

1. A Man; this involves the preaching and evangelization.

2. A Movement; this involves the setting up of teaching facilities and institutions.

3. A Machine; this involves regimentation and patterning the sys­tem after the world’s system of education (colleges and universities).

4. A Monument; this means the Holy Spirit has departed, aban­doning the institution to paganism: discipline and academic standards are substituted for the liberty and power of the Holy Spirit.

5. Materialism; there is no shred of the movement left.

All religious movements begin with a MAN (John 1:6), and he is followed by a MOVEMENT, which becomes a MACHINE, which erects a MONUMENT: monuments are brick, stone, and mortar—they are MATERIAL. Now you have to find another “man” to get the train back on the tracks.

The terminology adopted for these steps may vary from age to age to confuse the reader and prevent him from learning the lessons of church history. For example, sometimes paganism is called “atheism” or “communism.” Sometimes it is called “Satanism” or “Catholicism.” Apostasy is sometimes associated with “integration,” “synthesis,” “enlightenment,” “higher criticism,” etc. Sometimes Culture enters as “rationalism,” “high academic standards,” high cultural standards,” refinement,” “enriched curriculum,” etc. Variations are endless. As a variety of names are applied to Bible believers (see chapters 6, 7) to prevent identification, so a variety of names are given for CULTURE PAGANISM, and APOSTASY to cover up the connections and con­ceal the cycle going on in the age in which the reader is living. Every Christian school or church in America, for example, is presently on one of those five lines (a man—preaching; a movement—teaching; culture in a machine; apostasy in a monument; or back to its original position: materialistic paganism). The “original position” is “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

This circular pattern will explain what happened to European Christianity between 100-300 A.D.; what happened to the German Reformation between 1500 and 1800; what happened to the English Awakening between 1600 and 1900; and what happened to American Christianity between 1901 and 1990. The cycle rolls inexorably onward, and the only schools, churches, individuals, and institutions which sur­vive in any kind of scriptural condition for more than thirty years are the ones who refuse to go beyond Step TWO (Biblical education). Not

one step beyond that is safe, for that is the limit given in Matthew 28:19, 20 and the limit given in 2 Timothy 2:15 for Christian “growth.” “Culture” (1 Cor. 1; 2; Acts 17:21; Isa. 29:11) is never a factor to be considered (1 Tim. 6:20; Col. 2:8). Those who tread its gossamer path (see the NIV and the New ASV in Rom. 1:21, 25, and 28) must eventually stand up and attack the verses in the Bible (see the NIV and the New ASK on Gal. 3:1 and Rom. 13:9) that any unsaved atheist would attack. “Culture” means the instilling into the child of God the idea that there are authorities higher than the Book by which he was saved and enlightened. Culture sounds “May Day” for any individual, school, church, or nation on the face of the earth; and if there is one lesson that history teaches, it teaches THAT.12 If there is one lesson that his­tory teaches which church historians never learned, it is THAT; and, further, if there is one lesson which never could pierce the beclouded and egotistical minds (Rom. 1:21,25, 28) of the modern, apostate Fun­damentalist, it is THAT lesson. A fool who is wise in his own conceit will not be reformed with any amount of truth presented in any manner by anyone (see Prov. 27:22 and comments in that commentary).

The Pauline Obsession (see the introduction) will crop up time and time again in our study of history. Never is it more manifest than it is in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the lives of dead ortho­dox, dry-eyed, pin-whiskered, bifocaled mutts sitting in the faculty lounges of Tennessee Temple, Springfield, Westminster, Bob Jones, Midwestern, Princeton, and Dallas. These change agents who talk forever about their “loyalty to the Word of God” no more resemble Paul in their personal lives than a Mexican Chihuahua resembles a Ger­man Shepherd canine guard dog. Going to seed on “fundamentals,” “doctrines,” “creeds,” and “beliefs,” these guardians of the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Afman, Custer, Panosian, Porter, Melton, Godwin, Walker, Newman, MacRae, Brown, et al.) are about as reliable as a burnt out cigar. They don’t preach on the street (Acts 7); they don’t go “house to house” (Acts 20:20); they are never caught in “weariness, cold, pain, fastings, etc.” (2 Cor. 11:27); and they could no more make a Roman governor tremble (Acts 24:25) than they could tie their shoelaces with their teeth. Their language (“a better transla­tion should be,” “an unfortunate rendering here is,” “the Greek brings out the tense more clearly,” “these words are not in the original,” etc.) cannot be found one time in either Testament, let alone in anything Paul wrote in his lifetime; you cannot even find anything in the Pauline epis­tles that resembles such language. Their language is babel; it is tongues; it is not merely non-Pauline, it is non-Biblical and non-Christian.

Theologians and grammarians like to fancy that they are “Pauline” (see Gen. 20:7 and comments in that commentary); it makes them feel like “reverent Biblicists.”

Material for this history will be gathered around the central idea that practice and application of Biblical truth is what marks the Bible believer throughout church history. Where there is no belief,13 as in the case of hundreds of faculty members of fundamental schools (1900-1980), and where there is no application of belief, as far as we are concerned, there is no Biblical Christianity in evidence. What is in evidence is a mongrel or bastard Christianity; it is never to be mis­taken for Biblical Christianity.

If the reader will study the book of Acts (2:41; 4:33; 5:15; and 6:8), he will find that every single time there is a real moving of the Holy Spirit, there is immediate Satanic opposition to the work (Acts 4:1; 5:17; 5:40; 7:54). You cross the mountain and there is only one way to go: downhill. The circular patter given above will explain this motion. Once you pass from Evangelism and Education, you have to “batten down the hatches” and “secure all bulkheads,” for once you say “Education,” up pops the Alexandrian Cult (see chapter 5), who invented and set up the modem Christian educational system: the first Christian college was at Alexandria, Egypt.14 This means that no matter how “soul-winning” and how “evangelistic” a founder of a twentieth century school may have been (or still may be), he has set up a nesting place for apostasy as soon as he sets up a curriculum. If he cannot clean out the rats’ nest without destroying his setup, he will have to tolerate it or even defend it—vigorously.15 This explains the typical demonic setup where the “soul-winning” promoter and founder defends the non-soul-winning apostates on his faculty, while the apostate faculty members brag about “soul-winning” being the “first thing,” when they themselves have not led a soul to Christ anywhere from one year to thirty years. While each of these characters are backslapping and protecting each other (and thereby alibiing each others’ sins), the class­room is departing from faith in the word of God at the rate of five hundred miles an hour. This explains why every school, with the passage of time, winds up rejecting the Bible.16 The soul-winning “founder” protects the dirty work done by his staff, and they hide behind his spir­itual success to convince the unwary that they are spiritual, too: they are NOT. Most of them don’t have a spiritual bone in their bodies. The damage they do to ministerial students in the classroom is absolutely incalculable, and only the Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal the gross sins of the “soul-winning” founder and the gross sins of his compatri­

ots who turned fifty to fifty thousand young people away from their faith in the Book by which they found Jesus Christ (Matt. 11:27). All will come out in the “wash” (Eph. 5:27), and the pious alibis abroad now will appear in their true light. There is a reason for the downward spiraling of history, spirituality, and Bible belief, but it is always found, in any century, in the apostatizing of educational institutions that were founded and built by Bible believing Christians. (The Lord will not be nearly as polite and as tactful in dealing with these matters as I have been.) The God of Truth is the God of History; the God of History is the God of the Bible.

Philip Schaff s sources for “worship in the Ante-Nicene age” naturally refer to what Harnack, Probst, Volz, Weizsacker, Zahn, and others thought about early worship.17 We, of course, understand the Jewish type of worship at this time that went on in the synagogues (the Shema, the eighteen prayers of Benedictions [Berachoth], the lesson from the Law [Parasha] and the Prophets [Haphthara], and the para­phrased readings in the Midrash, etc.), but this has nothing to do with a form of “service” in a New Testament Christian assembly after Acts 15, or possibly after Acts 7. The saved Jews of Acts 2-5 worshipped in the Temple (Acts 3:1-4); nothing is said about Christians assembling in synagogues. The synagogues where Paul preached (Acts 13:14) were Jewish assemblies. If Christians were present (Acts 19:8)—Gentile or otherwise (Acts 10:22)—they listened or stood up and preached New Testament truth (Acts 13:38-42). There is no New Testament record of any synagogue observing the New Testament ordinances in any service. When the church historians begin to lead you astray into the anti-scriptural maze of Roman intrigues, they take you immediately away from the scriptures into the Didache and the Epistles of Clement.18 That is, the guiding lights of Christian literature—the saved church histori­ans—will abandon the Biblical record (Acts 7-28) immediately and replace it with the heresy of two spurious documents that are no more scriptural than Tobit or Bel and the Dragon.

No sooner does John die than the “eucharistic prayers” suddenly enter into the local church, and with them, the church historians begin to talk about “liturgical rites” and “liturgical passages” (that’s what Philip Schaffs church calls them).19 Quite naturally Schaff, the church historian, refers to “sacred rites” as “sacraments,”20 although noth­ing of the kind is found anywhere in ANY New Testament. Then just to make sure that the great scholar writes the most objective church history one can obtain—with the most “neutral” observance of “fact”— Schaff tell us (Vol. I, p. 465) that the sacrament of water baptism

replaced circumcision as a “SIGN.” Baptism is never referred to as a "sign "anywhere in either Testament. Schaff has read a papal prejudice into the text before he got through one volume of “church history.” No local church in the New Testament practiced water baptism as a sign or a "sacrament. ” To teach otherwise is to teach FICTION, not history.

The preposterous proof that Schaff offers for infant baptism being a “FACT” in the early church, is the “fact” that it rests on “strong probabilities," although “that fact” is “not capable of positive PROOF.”

That was the Christian scholarship behind the ASV of 1901. Philip Schaff was the head of that committee. One will observe that when Schaff, as Westcott and Hort, refers to “facts,” he is never referring to any FACT that is found anywhere in history. When they say “fact” they qualify it by saying that the fact is a “strong probability.” The foundation “facts” behind the “accepted principles of the reconstruc­tion of the Greek New Testament” for the NIV and the New ASV were the theories of Westcott, Hort and Philip Schaff.22 They were no more “facts” than Philip’s baby sprinkling.

Schaff did not write “church history” in his first volume: he wrote fiction.

Not content with adding to the word of God at this point and per­verting the word of God at this point, the worthy historian tells us that the “eucharist” was “celebrated” (that is the Roman Catholic desig­nation for “taken”) daily.23 What is the authority for this? It is the Campbellite theory that Acts 2:46 is the “Lord’s Supper” in the face of the fact that Acts 20:7, 11 indicates that it was eating meals. Allowing his “tolerance” to overrule the truth of God, Schaff lists four interpre­tations of the communion (1 Cor. 10:16) and then tells us that the blessing of the ordinance does not depend upon Biblical understanding or Bibli­cal interpretation. One might as well say that damnation was a reward that a Christian received for not “discerning the Lord’s body” in the communion (1 Cor. 11:29). Some portions of church history, as recorded by the main Christian historians of church history, should be addenda to Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

The standard way of handling four interpretations (see above) is to refuse to choose sides, or else play God and decide that one that con­tradicts the rest of scripture is the right one. Schaff accepts the Roman Catholic position on baby sprinkling and on the “sacrament” of communion. That is, you openly state that four choices are “matters of preference,” but that the words of scripture are not to decide which

of the four is absolutely right: then you go to work undercover to con­vince the reader that YOU are right and the words of the scriptures are wrong. That is the Alexandrian method.

To cite another example:

The words of scripture state that the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:29) is made up of living people (1 Cor. 10:17); it is no longer a reference to a dead corpse (John 6:55). The words of scripture point to a memo­rial (1 Cor. 11:25), never a “sacrament. ” Therefore, three out of four of Schaffs “interpretations” may be discarded at once, unless the “Christian” is worried about social standing, political image, income, relatives, employment, publicity, or sales. In this case there is no point in Schaffs listing the four interpretations because his motive was wrong to start with: he had no intention of believing what the scriptures said about ANY of the interpretations. It is very similar to your Greek teacher giving you “four possible readings” for Romans 1:25 (NIV, ASV, New ASV, and AV) when the point to start with was how to get rid of the AV text and replace it with his own opinion, which was based on his desire to avoid the scriptural charge of SIN in his own life (see Rom. 1:21, 25, and 28). There is rarely any “problem” with any reading of the AV of 1611: the problem is in the life of the dirty rascal who resents its clarity.

Newman fares a little better when he uses Pfleiderer, Hort, Lightfoot, Allen, Bauer, Dargan, and Cremer as a starting point. How­ever, confounding James 2:2 with other passages, Newman thought that Christians met in synagogues.23 Ignoring the first words of the epistle (James 1:1), Newman pretended that the Epistle of James was written to Christians: Kenneth Taylor (Living Bible) did him one better and changed the whole first verse so that it said exactly that. There is no Greek manuscript on earth that says James 1:1 was written to Chris­tians: Newman and Taylor are down the rabbit hole with Alice and the Mad Hatter. The book of James was written “TO THE TWELVE TRIBES WHICH ARE SCATTERED ABROAD.”

All of the writers used by Newman, however, agree that the New Testament church was an independent body of baptized believers (Hatch, Harnack, McGiffert, Weiszacker, Conybeare, and Howson). They met on the first day of the week for obvious scriptural reasons (Exod. 12:16; Acts 2:1; John 20:1; 1 Cor. 16:2; and Acts 20:7), and they operated as individual entities without supervision from any “area” or territorial “bishop” (Cunningham, Hamack, Schaff, et al.). There is no contro­verting the fact that the local New Testament church was self-governing, self-propagating, and self-sustaining. No writer, not even the worst of

the Jesuits (Bellarmine, Nobili, Loyola, et al.) or the most radical of the International Socialists (Pike, Kagawa, Peale, Weigle, Sockman, Oxnam, Blake, Weatherhead, et al.), would deny that a Bible believ­ing New Testament church was completely independent and was never given orders (let alone demands) by any group higher than itself. Acts 15 produces a set of recommendations (not orders) and suggestions (Acts 15:23, 25, 29).

Church polity, to Philip Schaff, is so flexible that he claims 50% right and 50% wrong for Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episco­palians, and Catholics when they stake their claims on the New Testa­ment method of operating a church.26 Schaff does not mention the Baptists at all. In his zeal to prove everything is “50-50,” Schaff appeals to the RV readings of Acts 20:17 to replace the Authorized Version. Here Schaff insists that the /IL has obscured the identity of the bishops in the local church.27 But he had no intention of accepting the Bible any place where it disagreed with his own opinions. Since 1 Peter 5:1-6 interpreted Acts 20:17 (in the AV of 1611), there was not much sense in Schaff making the change. However, before we get through with church history we will find a lot of this kind of thing going on. For example, after a lengthy exposition and a lot of going into manuscript evidence,28 Schaff comes to the conclusion that the angels of the seven churches (Rev. 1-3) are the local pastors! This ancient chestnut has sur­vived the fireplace to this day with God vomiting a pastor out of his mouth (Rev. 3:16). Always willing to give way to the devil if enough “preferences” are present, Schaff allows that the angels “might be” heavenly messengers (Origen, DeWette, Alford, and Lightfoot), or again they might be “deputies or clerks” (Vitringa, Lightfoot, Bengel, Winer), or again (if you “prefer”) they might be personifications of the churches (Arethas, Salmasius). Since not one man listed (including Schaff) believed that angels were thirty-three year old males without wings (see Gen. 18:2; 19:1 with comments in that commentaiy), there really wasn’t any point in trying to make any application in the first place.

The history of the local New Testament church is an impossible thing for Philip Schaff to handle. Overshadowing his brilliant mind, his vast learning, his diligent research into original sources, and his painstaking hours of laborious writing hovers a death angel carrying a pennant: it says “1CHABOD. ” You see, Schaff believed that the King­dom of God would be brought in through the visible churches by a slow, sure, steady, evolutionary process.21 With such a non-Christian, anti- Biblical prejudice against the Bible, Philip Schaff could no more find the real truth about church history than he could find a whisper in a

hurricane. To help “bring in the kingdom,” Philip introduces us to the New Testament “deaconess’ (see Amplified, Rom. 16:1). According to Schaff, since Eastern churches later (much later than New Testa­ment times) ordained women into the office of “deaconess,”30 the woman in Romans 16:1 (in New Testament times) has to be a deacon­ess. However, since the word in Romans 16:1 is not in the feminine gender but the NEUTER, Philip and his playmates must do something quickly: he does; he inserts a footnote to the effect31 that “afterwards” the word was not spelled like every Greek Biblical manuscript in the world had it spelled (NEUTER), but it was spelled in the FEMININE GENDER. This was the scholarship behind the ASV of 1901. Bible perversion to prove the theory of evolution is quite common among “Christian” historians.

Such are the ways of some of the greatest “church historians” the baby sprinklers ever produced. Philip Schaff, as his friends Westcott and Hort, was an ecumenical Catholic and the implacable enemy of Dean Burgon (1813-1888), who championed the Protestant text of the Reformation, so Schaff concludes his article on the “missing end of Mark 16” with the statement that everything is merely “conjecture”;32 that no certainty is possible in regard to whether or not you have the word of God in that portion of your Bible. Since that portion professes to have been given to the local assembly—in this case the first local apostolic assembly—we can certainly expect little or nothing from Philip Schaff where his pen crosses Biblical truth. We may make use of his investigations and researches into the fields of Roman Catholic liturgy, Roman Catholic politics, fanatical groups in the Dark Ages, Reformation polity and theology, Roman Catholic popes and other assorted crimi­nals, secular events, and dating systems. However when it comes to the local New Testament church, its nature, its standards of authority, and its development, Schaff is no more reliable than Dollinger (1799- 1899), Mohler (1796-1838), Hefele (1809-1893), Renan (1832-1892), or Neander (1789-1850). Historians such as Eusebius, Socrates, Sozo- men, Theodoret, Callisti, Cassiodorus, Migne, Theiner, and Facius can make contributions by informing us of ecclesiastical developments that are contemporaneous with the history and development of the Bible believing assemblies, but interpretation of these historical facts lies out­side of their grasp and ability, as all manifest a broad-minded tolerance for anti-scriptural expositions and a compromising “preference” for some of the most dangerous heresies ever extracted from the word of God, or (as in the case just listed) heresies derived by altering the scrip­ture to make it suit the heresy.

A church historian who begins his history with a false or distorted view of the nature of the local church will shortly find himself in water so deep33 that he cannot stay afloat without improvised life preservers. The local assembly of baptized believers, called out of the world sys­tem in which they live, is the essential unit to be studied in any church history. Not one of them in the New Testament baptizes infants, and not one of them would ever confuse regeneration of the sinner by the Holy Spirit with water baptism: that is a later “improvement”—if you look at it through the eyes of a Bible rejecting, religious evolutionist.


Putting the Church Back into Church History

“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” Acts 9:31

Church history, by virtue of Biblical definition, must deal with the history of the local congregations first and with organized denomina­tions secondly. The word “church” itself is well-known to all students of religion; it is the Western designation for feKKXr|aia (ecclesia), a called-out assembly; and although the word is occasionally a reference to the living organism of Christ’s spiritual body (Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:22, 1 Tim. 3:15), it is much more frequently used to indicate a local congregation of believers who have been called “out” of the world sys­tem for purposes of assembly (Acts 2), worship (Acts 4), prayer (Acts 4), mutual aid and assistance (Acts 11), teaching and preaching the Bible (Acts 13), missionary endeavors (Acts 16), and as a testimony for Jesus Christ to the pagan population among whom they dwell. The word for this “called-out assembly” refers to a local group of believers on this earth more than eighty times in the New Testament. Not once does any reader of the New Testament get the slightest whisper or shadow of the reality of a political hierarchy run by archbishops, cardinals, and popes, with “priests” and “nuns” trying to get tax money. The New Testament church is completely divorced from any church that is con­nected directly or indirectly with ANY of these people or their activities.

Now, it is absolutely essential to understand the New Testament picture of this “church” in order to write any kind of an honest church history. Where a church historian ignores the basic, primitive, Bible definition of what a New Testament church is, there will be no end

of confusion, misrepresentation, and “dead ends” in the historian’s research work. It would be quite impossible for Dollinger or Latourette, for example, to trace the New Testament church through any length of history, anywhere, no matter how many facts they had at their dis­posal, for neither man was ever a member of a local church in the New Testament sense, and neither man preached on the street (all the apos­tles did) long enough for a traffic light to change. Eusebius, the first church historian, is another very unreliable source for information where it deals with the New Testament assemblies. A half-Arian politician (see chapter 8), who denied the Pre-millennial return of Christ (chap­ter 7, notes 34-39), is not going to know much about the conduct of Christians in the New Testament who were expecting the immediate return of their Lord (Acts 3:19, 20; 1 Thess. 4:15-18; 1 John 3:2-3). Not once does the term (ecclesia) ever refer to any group of Christians anywhere who prayed to Mary, took mass, said “rosaries,” or sprin­kled babies: those are later “improvements”—if you are a religious evolutionist.

In the New Testament the local church is self-governing (Acts 6); it chooses its own pastors and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-12); its pastor is its visible head on this earth (Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim. 5:17); it supports poor saints (Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-3); it immerses its converts in water (Acts 16:33); and it sends out evangelists and missionaries (Acts 13:1-4; 16:1-4).

Question: How does a Christian (any Christian in ANY century) improve on this pattern?

What do you suppose would possess a church historian (Eusebius, Schaff, Fisher, Migne, LaGarde, Walker, Newman, et al.) to think that following the completion of the New Testament and its record of the ministry of the apostles, that the next move (90-200 A.D.) would be a progressive move forward which improved the nature of the primi­tive church and “matured” it? When Fisher and Neander try to explain early Christianity to their readers, they use the Apostolic Constitutions and the Didachex to convince you that the worship services described in those corrupt forgeries are a progressive development beyond that found in the New Testament. Who could do such a thing but a Bible denying evolutionist?

Since every major denomination until 1900 professed that the Bible was the final authority (Rome accepting tradition as an equal author­ity, as usual), how would any historian but a Roman Catholic trace the history of a corporate ecclesiastical system involved in international politics through history as though that were the New Testament church?

That would be ANTI-CHURCH HISTORY. What motive would com­pel a church historian to do such a monstrous thing other than a desire to confirm a monstrous lie and cover up the truths of history? If one speaks of “the church” as “the body of Christ” (Eph. 3:1-6; Col. 1:18), what would such a body have to do with an ecclesiastical hierarchy of cowards (chapter 12, note 67) and fornicators (chapter 12, notes 86-88) controlling governments through “sacraments”?

Observe that in the New Testament the church has no cardinals, no novenas, no nuns, no abbots, no monks, no priests, no sacraments, no Christmas, no beads, etc. With no prayers for the dead, no rever­ence showed to Mary, and no statues as “aids to worship,” how are we to interpret the “expansion of Christianity” (100-500 A.D.) and the “growth of the church” (500-1000 A.D.) which follows the com­pletion of the New Testament? According to Dollinger and Latourette (and others), we are to assume that these items were part of a slow, DIVINE “leavening” (chapter 11, notes 58-59) which, being blessed of God, was a movement destined to convert the entire world to “Chris­tianity”—whatever that is.

The local church in the book of Acts is harassed and persecuted by Rome (Acts 24). It is Rome who cuts off James’ head (Acts 12) and imprisons Paul (Acts 28) and whips and nails Jesus Christ (Matt. 27). Did the Roman “cat” suddenly get turned around the other way when Constantine the Great got sprinkled (chapter 7, note 13)? Did Rome cease to kill and imprison Christians after 313 A.D. (the Edict of Milan)? I trow not. The church state organized under Constantine (325-500 A.D.) pronounced the death sentence on every Bible believing Christian in the Empire and every pagan in the Empire who did not subscribe to its own council decrees (see chapters 8 and 9).

The local assembly in the New Testament never commemorates anyone’s birthday, they never pray to Mary, and they are never caught sprinkling babies anywhere but in the kitchen sink. Such matters are not the subject of scholarly preference or sober discussion. There is not one case of infant baptism by sprinkling or immersion in any New Testament.2 Those Romans pressed to extremities to prove a Roman point might assume that there were infants in the household of a single woman (Acts 16:15), but, then again, you might also assume that there were polar bears present and possibly a Catholic priest with “holy water,” depending upon how much money there was in it for you to prove the point.

The local assembly in the New Testament has ordained elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-4), no priests, nuns, monks, archbishops, cardi­

nals, or popes. An “archbishop,” according to Webster’s Dictionary, would be at least one spiritual rank higher than the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25), who was unable to attain to that illustrious position. Are we to assume that the positions of “cardinals” and “archbishops” within the Soviet-Catholic church be Biblical offices? Or than it is an improve­ment on the New Testament pattern? If contrary to the Bible (1 Tim. 2:1-10), are we to put up with them as being in line with “sound doc­trine”? If they emerged by way of “oral tradition” (John 21:25) and come into conflict with the writings of the apostles (1 Tim. 3:1-8; 1 Peter 5:1-6), how is a Bible believing Christian to take them? As tokens of good intentions paving the road to hell? As “progressive revelations” which the Lord didn’t have time to talk about? How does a group of popes and archbishops publish an Index of “forbidden books” (chap­ter 17, note 28) on the grounds that these books are “untruthful” when forgeries,3 holy grails, candles, beads, bells, rosaries, purgatory, and indulgences are just as untruthful to the New Testament as hexes, Easter bunnies, hired pews, simony, black magic, Vatican politics, pornogra­phy, and Catholicism?

Again, no matter what evidence to the contrary is produced in regard to the manner and the nature of worship in the local assemblies after 90 A.D., what is an honest man to say of them where they clearly con­tradict the TRUTH (John 17:17) as given (2 Tim. 3:16) by the Author of all truth (John 14:17), who promised to guide an honest man (John 7:17) into “ALL TRUTH” (John 16:13)?

This is the most serious theological question a Christian will ever have to deal with.

In regard to progressive revelation, any student of the Bible can see that truth is progressive to a certain point in the book of Acts (see Acts 2 and comments in that commentary). Expedients do have to be devised from time to time (Acts 6:1-6) to remedy certain situations that arise which are not covered in the Old Testament (Acts 14:23). On at least one occasion something resembling a council is called (Acts 15), although the Holy Spirit is much more careful in describing it than the church historians are: the Holy Spirit never refers to Acts 15 as a “coun­cil,” since that word, by Bible definition (Acts 4:15; 22:30; 24:20; and 6:12), occurs nowhere in Mark, Luke, John, or Acts without being a reference to a group of religious hypocrites assembled to carry out the will of SATAN in suppressing the truth (see Mark 13:9; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; and Acts 6:15). How is it then that we do not find this basic, fundamental, Bible truth mentioned one time in any church his­tory written by Neander, Drummond, Cairns, Walker, Moyer, Schaff,

Dollar, Fisher, Latourette, Hefele, or Vedder? Would not a real scholar call such a thing a “serious oversight”? Here are seven standard, official “church councils” noted by all the historians in all of their histories (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451, Con­stantinople 553, Constantinople 680, and Nicaea 787) without one historian knowing what the BIBLE says about a “council”! It’s a strange world, isn’t it? If the councils of Mark, Luke, John, and Acts were not a Satanic operation, according to the author of the other twenty- three books in the New Testament, what were they? Expressions of peace on earth to “men of good will”? Ecumenical overtures for “one fold and one shepherd”? You see, by taking the evolutionary approach (the positive approach) the church historians disqualify themselves when they sit down to write. There are no Christian “councils” anywhere in the New Testament; the councils in the first six centuries of church history are the inventions of ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

The common sense rule which the scriptures plainly lay down for us is that any teaching or practice that does not run contrary to the scrip­ture may be accepted to cover “doubtful cases” (Rom. 14; Col. 3). For example, one cannot condemn church buildings simply because they are not “in the scriptures,” although they certainly are not. One can­not throw the Sunday School out and wreck the buses simply because a verse does not say, “Go ye into all the world on buses and bus in the kiddies.” Some of the brethren are so “scriptural” they are unscriptural (1 Cor. 8:1-2).

However, when a clear case of violating or contradicting scripture arises—say, a “repeated sacrifice” (Heb. 10:8-14) that has no blood (Heb. 9:22) or the calling of a religious leader “father” (Matt. 23:9) or praying to more than one Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) or saying that Mary was sinless (Luke 2:22)—then we have not only a horse of a different color but a snake of a different rattle (see Rome—the Great Private Inter­preter, 1969). The Satanic way to handle these matters (Gen. 3:1) is as follows: since “good men disagree” on these things, they are only matters of “preference,” not something to get excited about, and certainly not something to split the “one fold” with as a matter of doc­trinal controversy. That is, the word of God is not as important as peace, love, and “unity.” “Tolerance” and “love” are the great words (see Rev. 2:2 and comments in that commentary) used by every apostate Fundamentalist in America for adding to or taking from (or pervert­ing) the words of God. Oddly enough, these are the great words used also by all Liberals and Modernists in the National Council of Churches whose basic creed is Matthew 7:1.

Adding to and subtracting from the words of God caused the destruc­tion and depravity of the human race (Gen. 3:1-3). The first two sins ever committed on this earth were committed by a woman (ERA, Eve ruined Adam). They were, first of all, subtracting from the words of God; and secondly, adding to them. With this Biblical fact in bold face, block print, glaring in the faces of every man who ever read any Bible, why do you suppose it is that subtracting 128 words from the Greek text of the New Testament (see Nestle, Hort, Aland, Metzger) or add­ing 600 words to it (see Manuscript “D” used to correct Luke 24:51-52 in the ASV, New ASV, and NIV) is only a matter of “preference”?4 Eve preferred to believe a liar.

The local New Testament church was composed of baptized believ­ers who believed the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13) and the words of God (John 8:47). Their “communism” was a voluntary one (Acts 4:32) and entirely separate from the State. Since they were all capitalists (Matt. 20:11-16) and all believed in the ownership of private property (Acts 5:4), they never became “involved” in socialistic attempts by politi­cians to restore Eden to “mankind” via bills, taxes, sharing incomes, CARE packages, litigations, urban housing renewal, Metro government, and welfare programs: they took care of their own poor folk (Acts 11:29; Rom. 15:25-26); and “their own poor” (1 Cor. 16:1-5) was never a reference to the race-mixing Libertines (Acts 6:9) of their time, or Caesar’s politicians from the Senate. That is, there is nothing about the Christian, New Testament, local church that resembles the activ­ity, philosophy, program, or plans of the NCCC in 1980. This “vile” world has never been a “friend of grace” (John 17:14) for the New Testament local church, and none of them would ever have made the mistake of thinking that they or anyone else could “bring in the king­dom” (New Deal, Fair Deal, War on Poverty, The Great Society, ERA, Civil Rights, etc.)5 without the return of the KING (Acts 3:19). Trying to get God’s will “done on earth as it is in heaven” has always been the stock and trade of the pie-on-the-earth-bye-and-bye club (Napoleon, the Kennedys, Hearst, the Washington Post, Hitler, Carter, Rockefeller, Abernathy, Bishop Sheen, Pike, Castro, Franco, the Bilderbergers, Bloody Mary, and the popes). That is exactly what Jim Jones (1978) was trying to do in Guyana; if you don’t believe it, go talk to the peo­ple who heard him preach. Jim preached civil rights, gay liberation, ERA, social justice, sharing of wealth, communal economics, and abolition of poverty. Like all popes, he was called “FATHER.”

These matters have been commented on sufficiently in our publi­cation of 1970 called The Sure Word of Prophecy (The Kingdom of God

Versus the Kingdom of Heaven). For now, we should note only that the church in the book of Acts is pictured as a local assembly, called out of this world system to worship and serve God according to the instructions given orally by Jesus Christ (Acts 1:1-8) and finally writ­ten down by the Apostles. If anyone were to trace the history of this “called-out assembly” as it multiplied into innumerable “assemblies” (Rev. 2; 3), he would have to avail himself of every resource he could that is related to Bible preaching, Bible teaching, the attitude of assemblies towards science and philosophy (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20), the attitude of Christians to the Second Advent, the attitude of assem­blies towards Rome and Roman satellites, and above all their attitudes towards FINAL AUTHORITY. To attempt such a church history after disregarding what the Creator of the church (Eph. 1:22-23) said about it (Acts 20:28), and what the Head of the church (Col. 1:18) did with it (Acts 3-28), is spiritual madness.

Since Jerome, Augustine, Schaff, Dollinger, Eusebius, Constantine, and countless others did just that, we should not be surprised to find within the confines of their “church histories” a long narrative of fraud, embezzlement, heresy, blackmail, torture, war, and murder. In the New Testament these things are always associated with the enemies of the church, whether without or within; they compromise ANTI-church his­tory. If the guiding dictum, given by our Lord, is “by their fruits ye shall know them’’ (Matt. 7:20), then certainly organized state religions like Catholicism, Anglicanism, the Reformed churches, Lutheranism, and Communism (all Communists are “do-gooders” and religious fanat­ics) are rooted and grounded in diseased muck up to their branches. Any church that would profess to be “the church that Christ founded”6 and have the audacity to publicly declare that outside of that church there is no salvation7—when all the fruit it can show for such a profes­sion is a fifteen century string of the bloodiest murders and the most diabolical political plots ever hatched on this earth (and pleading “igno­rance” after being caught in such machinations)—is a very worm-eaten “tree” indeed (Matt. 13:32). If the fruit of such a hybrid monstrosity were to fall to the ground and someone examined it, he would find that it tasted of a corrupt Bible, a corrupt leadership, a corrupt creed, a corrupt membership (Matt. 13:32), and a corrupt “Christ.” Its toxic seed produced the greatest poverty-stricken populations in the Western Hemisphere (Mexico, South and Central Americas, and parts of Canada), yet every decade its spiritual leader (“The Vicar of, etc.”) deplores Poverty, unemployment, the underprivileged, and the downtrodden (Pope John Paul n, Jan. 1979), while he himself lives in a palace with four­

teen hundred rooms, fifty dial telephones, a private bodyguard of two hundred armed men, four private automobiles, and a private plane.8 How sound could a tree be when it is pruned, planted, and plucked by a HYPOCRITE? With fruit to offer that would gag a buzzard, one is constrained to either cut down the tree (Luke 13:9) or spray it with rat poison. You could get something more nourishing off a mesquite bush or a chinaberry tree. Whatever “church history” may be, it certainly is not a preoccupation with the sordid artifices of a political conspiracy that spent 1,000 years trying to prove that the “gates of hell” couldn’t overthrow it simply because it made alliances and compromises with hell (and any of its gate keepers) on a regular basis—in order to insure that its converts were “twofold more the child of hell” than itself (Matt. 23:15). This will be very apparent when studying the background of the Thirty Years War, World War I, World War II, and Vietnam (see Vol. II).

Speaking aside, then, from the “fathers” (see chapter 4) and extra-canonical early “Christian” works, whether by apologists or polemicists, the facts are that the New Testament churches were Bible believing assemblies of baptized believers. They are marked by many practical characteristics (see Acts 2 and comments in that commentary), but the outstanding things that mark them off from Campbellite churches (in the nineteenth century), Communistic and Socialistic cells (in the twentieth century), and Roman Catholicism (in ANY century) is that:

1. They go by an Old Testament that does not contain one word of the Apocryphal books in it.

2. The New Testament they construct is written largely in Asia Minor, without one “original autograph” being written within fifty miles of Alexandria, Egypt.9

3. Their home base is Antioch of Syria, not Rome. From this area comes the Byzantine Textus Receptus of Martin Luther’s time and the time of King James. (The only New Testament epistles written in Rome are written in jail.)

4. They are occupied with prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4), and the latter includes the teaching of the word of God (Acts 13:1-4) and missionary endeavors to get the Gospel out to the ends of the earth (Acts 16:1-6).

5. They never baptize infants, and they never recommend water baptism in any form to any convert among the Gentiles as a means of salvation or regeneration (Acts 15). The official doctrines of salvation for the body of Christ (stated by the elders, apostles, brethren, and the Holy Ghost—see comments on Acts 15 in that commentary) declare

that a Gentile believer is saved by grace through faith (Acts 15:11) plus nothing. No one after the Jewish Pentecostal message on the Jewish feast day (before any of the New Testament was written) ever mistakes water baptism for regeneration and salvation; no Christian in the New Testament ever preached water baptism again as a means for receiving the Holy Spirit or the new birth (see Acts 2:38 and comments in that commentary).

6. The genuine church never gets “involved” with any govern­ment programs or goals of any kind to help (or hinder) any racial group. They never attempt to bring in any kind of “peace on earth” through any “demonstrations” or lobby to get the passage of any legislation connected with welfare handouts or ecological plans. They are not of this world (John 17:16).

7. Finally, no New Testament Christian ever calls any church leader “father,” nor is one New Testament church official ever called a “priest” to the exclusion of any other Christian in the congregation, even if he led them to Christ (1 Cor. 4:15). No man is a church “father” even if he is a “pillar” of the church (Gal. 2:9), and you couldn’t find a Roman archbishop or a “cardinal” in the New Testament if you searched it with a laser beam. The pagan Roman paraphernalia (see chapter 6) which accompanies Constantine’s usurpation of New Testa­ment authority has nothing to do with “church history” except as it is related to Satan’s efforts to corrupt the assemblies and prevent them from obeying God; it is to keep them from performing the task for which they were placed in this world (John 17:18; Acts 1:8). The cute little “addendas” and “embellishments” added to the New Testament from time to time by Tertullian, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, The Didache, and the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions’’ (and later little adornments by the popes) are to be taken with a ton of bicarbonate of soda. They are descrip­tions of assemblies that are trying to get around New Testament practice.10 However hallowed the holy “past” may be (see Exod. 16:3 and comments in that commentary), it is neither holy nor virtuous to place a halo over the lies and false teachings of good men who had a part in corrupting New Testament doctrines and practices. Where they were scriptural or did not contradict scripture (see above), we may thank God for their good sense and their contributions; where they have violated the sacred trust (2 Tim. 2:2) or kept their mouths shut (1 Cor. 9:16-17) because of having “men’s persons in admiration” (Jude 16), we certainly are not to “canonize” them. There are two natures in every

godly’’ Christian. To suppose that the “new creature” is in opera­tion twenty-four hours a day, in all spheres of thought and activity, is

fantastic. David could not always be trusted with someone’s wife, and Noah could not always be trusted with a bottle of grape juice. To think, therefore, that such semi-believers as Origen, Hort, Eusebius, Machen, Hymenaeus, Warfield, Wuest, Custer, Afman, Harris, Sumner, and Augustine could be trusted with the preservation of the words of God is to require too much credulity from an impartial student of history. Where an apostate Fundamentalist or apostate Conservative proves by his writings and his speeches that he is in agreement with Bible reject­ing heretics and Bible perverting Catholics, he is not to be applauded on the grounds that he is a “reverent Biblicist’’ or a “separated Chris­tian.” Demas was a Christian (2 Tim. 4:10), and so was Diotrephes (3 John 9). As someone has so aptly said, “If you Bible teacher doesn’t accept the Authorized Version as the Holy Bible, he is in agreement with Satan on that point: I don’t know on what other points they dis­agree.”

The only way to write a church history, according to the Author of Truth (John 15:26), is to come to terms with the Author (John 16:13) before one starts. A historian should agree with Him that all godly men have two natures, that all godly men are subject to Satanic attacks, that all godly men can be misled at times (see chapters 5,6), and that all godly men can be used by Satan at times (Matt. 16:23), even though all godly men have contributed something good, proper, or scriptural to the cause of the New Testament church. Furthermore, most of the godly men in history have been correct in believing the main things they should believe from the New Testament. However, the indiscrim­inate application of the word “godly” to an unregenerate philosopher or an unregenerate church politician (see Eusebius’ panegyric on Constantine) is blasphemy. In the New Testament an unregenerate man—no matter how prayerful or “godly,” no matter how pious and “spiritual” he is—is said to be a “child of wrath,” a “child of disobe­dience,” without strength, without God, without hope, and alone, without Christ in the world (Eph. 2:1-6; Rom. 5:6-10).

Opinions to the contrary are held by self-deluded Pharisees (John 3:36; Mark 7:7, 13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Furthermore, a church historian should agree with the Author of history, and the scriptures, that no “Kingdom of Heaven” is about to come to this earth until the King of Heaven returns to this earth and gains His rightful throne (Matt. 19:28; 25:31) at Jerusalem (Luke 1:30-33; Matt. 5:35). Therefore, Post-millennialism and A-millennialism should be treated by any Bible believing historian as two of the most dangerous anti-Christian heresies in history: neither of them are treated

that way by Latourette, Drummond, Fisher, Vedder, Dollinger, Migne, Bettenson, Cairns, Walker, Neander, Albright, Bruce, D’Aubigne, Socrates, Sozomen, or Mosheim. Proof that either position is Satanic is by the fact that all professional politicians, all International Social­ists, all atheistic Communists, and all Roman Catholic theologians subscribe to one or the other. Post-millennialism, without its frills (see chapter 12), is the teaching that since man is basically good that he is “the measure of all things”; therefore he is perfectly able, without Divine intervention, to bring in a “Golden Age,” Thousand Year Reich, Fatima Peace Plan, War on Poverty, New Foundation, Soviet Intern, Holy Roman Empire, etc., by himself. All Post-millennialists are positive thinkers; they have to be to make a living. The A-millennialists include Mauro, Berkhof, Calvin, Truett, Spurgeon, Ladd, Beecher, Westcott, Nestle, Hort, and many members of the National Council of “Chris­tian” Churches. Strange bedfellows.

The internal enemies of the New Testament local churches are jealousy (1 Cor. 3:3), the desire for vengeance (1 Cor. 6:1-6), false apostles who profess to be Charismatics (2 Cor. 11:1-13), ambitious church leaders (3 John 9), teachers of false doctrine (Matt. 13:33), reli­gious sacramentalists (Matt. 23:1-33), religious leaders who make the word of God of none effect by “tradition” (Mark 7:1-13; Col. 2:8), puffed up egotists who think that science is of equal authority to the Bible (1 Tim. 6:20), ambitious would-be millionaires (1 Tim. 6:17) who think that gain is godliness (1 Tim. 6:5), schismatics who want to get the pulpit for themselves (Acts 20:30), pious professing Christians (Matt. 24:5) who profess to represent Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 11:10-14; Matt. 7:15), and educated asses who think that the sun rose and set on Greek scholarship (1 Cor. 1-3).

Where these enemies appear in church history, they are to be denom­inated as ENEMIES (Phil. 3:18, 19), not “brothers in Christ.” They are not to be honored for their “hallowed and sacred associations” or their “blessed succession from Simon Peter,” etc. They are to be marked (Rom. 16:17), rebuked (Titus 1:13), and dealt with (1 Cor. 5-6). They are to be dealt with in a Christian manner (2 Thess. 3:15): never in the manner prescribed and carried'out by the Roman Catholic hierar­chy or the Roman Catholic church or the Roman Catholic councils or the Roman Catholic priests.11 When it comes to dealing with enemies of the Bible, Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity have no more tn common with each other than soul-winning and skinny-dipping.

The local church observed two ordinances (1 Cor. 10-11; Acts 2:41; 9:18; 10:48) and no sacraments; it had two offices, and two only, requir­

ing ordination (1 Tim. 3:1-8). It supported its own widows (1 Tim. 5:9-10). Its main job was maintaining purity of life, thought, fellow­ship and doctrine, and its outward relationship to the world was that of a separated group of “fanatical” nonconformists (Rom. 12:1-2), who were considered to be a heretical “SECT” (see chapter 9). The church considered its job to be the evangelization of unsaved sinners (Acts 1:8), and its blessed hope was, to be found busy at the coming of its Lord (Luke 19:13). The church was waiting for the Rapture as a cure for its own evils (1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4; 1 John 3; Phil. 2) and the Second Advent as a cure for the evils of Roman civilization (2 Thess. 2; Rev. 1; 14; 19; Isa. 2; etc.). It was a praying, worshipping, rejoicing, wit­nessing, testifying, persecuted, called-out “assembly,” and its history (church history) cannot be documented intelligently or understood with­out accepting the Biblical definitions for its origin, nature, character, calling, and work. Latourette, for example, states that any group that believes the nature of the New Testament church to be as we have just described it here is a group (or a person) that has an “EXTREME” view of the church.12 Since this is the view of the Holy Ghost who wrote the New Testament, it might pay Latourette to learn how to read his Bible before he accuses God of intemperance; that is quite a presump­tion for a “church” historian.

There is a reoccurring phrase in the works of Latourette, Durant, and others that is so overworked it should be allowed to retire on a pen­sion. That phrase (with variations) runs something like this: “We do not know how or when Christianity was first introduced into such-and- such a country....” A standard way of putting it is: “The beginnings of Christianity in such-and-such a country are shrouded in darkness....” The trouble that historians like this have is the terminology of the Bible. To begin with, “Christianity,” in church history books,, means anything from sprinkling babies to kissing crosses. In standard works it means Roman Catholic ecclesiasticism. Latourette will go so far (without know­ing what he is writing) as saying that “conversions” in South America and Mexico were water baptisms. With this “conversion to Christian­ity” (what Latourette calls “the True Faith”)13 among the Jews, Latourette uses the term conversions to refer to water baptism enforced with the alternatives of exile or death.'4 What does water sprinkling at sword point have to do with THE CHURCH? What church? No church in the Bible.

Schaff, for nearly three volumes, assumes (without any grounds whatsoever) that orthodox Christianity is Roman Catholicism; if by this he means “that at that time it was,” he is still so far off base he is

out of the ball park. Orthodox Christianity in the Bible is New Testa­ment Christianity: not Roman Catholic Fascism.

Neither Harnack nor Neve seem to have any idea of how “ortho­dox Christianity” or the “true faith” gets into a country because both men insist on thinking that the terms must refer to some missionary or monk sent from Rome to convert the nation to Roman Catholicism; thus, the only records they have for many countries are Roman Catho­lic records which the Catholics themselves made of their conquests of the nations. Didn’t Schaff and the rest of these men even stop to con­sider what they were saying when they said, “WE don’t know how...”? Whom are these men speaking for? None of them were evangelists or soul-winners, none of them were missionaries, and none of them were members of a New Testament local church. Why should they know “HOW” the Gospel got into ANY country?

Any Bible believer who believed the Bible knows perfectly well how the “true faith” (Gal. 1:8-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-5; Acts 20:1-28; Eph. 3:1-6; 1 Tim. 4:1-6) enters ANY country. Negatively, it never enters any country through a baby-sprinkling sacramentalist who thinks that water is the Holy Spirit; it never enters a tribe or populace through a Mary-worshipping, idol-kissing “priest,” and not once in the history of the universe did the “true faith” penetrate a heathen or pagan nation in the person of a Campbellite (one who believes in baptismal regener­ation) who had just been commissioned by an archbishop to go and gain some more subjects for a Fascist dominion. If the “true faith” ever entered a country, it entered as it did into Ethiopia (Acts 9), Samaria (Acts 8), Greece (Acts 17), or Rome (Acts 28): it came in by way of mouth from a Bible believing witness who was preaching the blood atone­ment of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:14-21) as the way to Heaven, apart from any kind of works (Acts 15:1-5). That “Plan” was established by the Apostles themselves,plus the “elders,” and including “Blessed Simon Peter” (Acts 15:7), more than a hundred years before Origen and Eusebius were born and more than three hundred years before any “pope” showed up anywhere. Therefore, what men like Latourette and Schaff don’t understand is the propagation of BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN­ITY through evangelism and teaching. This is primarily because the church historians never were evangelists; Schaff and Latourette couldn’t preach the Bible long enough to keep a German Shepherd awake. Their first person plural (“WE do not know....”) is very much like modern books that people read these days on “How WE got our Bible” or “OUR God-breathed Book,” etc.16 Let the agnostics speak for themselves, but let them not presume to speak for Christians who have more sense,

more experience, and better equipment (the Bible). “WE” know exactly how Christianity was introduced into Mexico, Malaysia, China, Rus­sia, England, Germany, Iceland, and Africa (if it was the “TRUE faith”) no matter what Jesuit or Franciscan got credit for establishing Roman ecclesiasticism in that territory LATER.

If the “true faith” entered, it entered the first time through the mouth of a Bible believing witness (Acts 1:8) for Jesus Christ (John 15:19-25). Any other “entrance” of any other “Christianity” comes under the heading of Galatians 1:9 and 2 Corinthians 11:15. The Bible can help a church historian a lot if he will consult it instead of his own imagination.

The great truth that one learns from studying such histories as Durant, Dollinger, Schaff, Latourette, Vedder, and Walker is that no matter how brilliant the researcher is and no matter how thoroughly he goes about the task of gathering, assembling, and presenting his mate­rial, he is still unable to understand the material, interpret it, or apply it to his reader in a Christian fashion. These men have laid the Bible aside before they sat down to write, and they do not intend to pick it up again and let its opinions, preferences, commandments, admonitions, analyses, and applications supplant their own. Nowhere is this more in evidence than when approaching the Philadelphia period of church history (Rev. 3:7-8), where the local churches “kept God’s word” and consequently had an open door for worldwide Bible preaching. Latourette is completely unable to understand this phenomena, although it was prophesied and put into writing a 1,800 years before he was born and printed in the universal language of the twentieth century three hun­dred years before he finished his education. The mighty revival brought about by the recovery and publication of the Syrian Textus Receptus (the Greek texts of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and Elzevir), translated into English and German and preached to the ends of the earth,17 caused intellectual, moral, industrial, social, artistic, and economic revolutions on a worldwide scale. Latourette lamely attributes the whole operation to what he calls “THE CHRISTIAN IMPULSE.”18 There is no such thing known to God or man. Latourette’s fantastic invention was his substitute for the convincing, regenerating (and hindering) power of the HOLY GHOST (John 16:8-11). In vain does Latourette attempt to analyze the Reformation and what followed. With a thousand books listed in his bibliography he can no more tell you what is going on between 1400 and 1900 than a Jesuit priest. (Schaff gives up the ghost and doesn’t even attempt a history after 1600.) Latourette finally ascribes the gigantic moral and spiritual upheaval (which affected attitudes

towards jails, insane asylums, slavety, the treatment of women and children, laborers, etc.) to “the Christian CONSCIENCE of SOCI­ETY”18—presumably unsaved, Bible rejecting humanists and philoso­phers with “Christian IMPULSES” who grew up in nations and governments that had “Christian consciences.” There is not a case in the Bible where ANY nation had a Christian “impulse” or a Christian “conscience,” and if a man who can read two thousand books can’t find that truth in a dimestore Bible, he has no more business posing as an educated man than as an author. The two terms “Christian con­science” and “Christian impulse” are two Alexandrian myths: like priests and sacraments.


The Constitution for the Churches

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit­able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc­tion in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17

There is no way that a student of church history can prepare him­self for the jolt that he receives when turning from Acts 28 to the next samples of so-called “Christian literature” (Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, etc.) that are supposed to deal with the subsequent development of the church. The gap between what the Bible says and what he finds written and practiced between 100 and 325 A.D. is so startling that he may despair, as the Bogomiles (1100-1200), of ever finding any continuation of real apostolic witnesses. He is most likely to presume that New Testament Christianity disappeared altogether and was replaced with “Catholic” Christianity. To understand what took place within the body of Christ during this “Smyrna” period (Rev. 2:8), one is forced to start by exam­ining the sources and compilation of the very Book which defines the church. Although a church history is not the proper place for a detailed discussion of manuscript evidence and textual criticism, this is certainly the area where those subjects affect church history as no other schol­arly disciplines do. We have settled the matter of definitions regarding the church in the previous chapter; those definitions concerning the local church were found written in a Book. Where did this Book come from? With thirty thousand books on How We Got Our Bible, The Books and the Parchments, Are the New Testament Manuscripts Reliable?, Which Bible?, and Biblical Introduction, it would seem that a Christian should understand something about where this series of writings came from how they came to be accepted as the final authority in all matters

The Bible issue in church history becomes even more controver­sial when we realize that the leading church historian Philip Schaff rec­ommended 35,000 changes in the Biblical text of the Reformation (ASV, 1901) and admitted he did this while following Westcott and Hort’s grossly corrupt version (RV, 1884) and its predecessors (Lachmann, 1850], and Tischendorf, 1872).1

The New Testament local church in the early part of the book of Acts had no book called a “New Testament”; they had the books that run from Genesis to Malachi. Furthermore, the mythological Septuagint (the LXX), which they were supposed to have used,2 can be found nowhere in evidence in any manuscript before 150 A.D.3 Since Schaff, as well as Tregelles, Davidson, Chemnitz, Berbeck, Zahn, Credner, Kirchhofer, Charteris, Gaussen, Reuss, and Westcott, believed that the local church of the Acts period used a Greek Old Testament (translated supposedly in 250 B.C.), we have a right to be highly suspicious of their “histories” where they deal with the TRUTH. When Schaff tries to bolster up the sagging theories of Westcott and Hort (1881-1884) in regard to the true Biblical text, he fumbles around as pitifully as a man who never held a historical document in his hand.4 This is a sad thing to see in a man who could read and write at least ten different languages; but it is no sadder than watching Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930)—who could handle twenty-six different languages—pre­tending that God was all through with Israel (see 1 Thess. 2:16 in The Amplified Version, put out by the Lockman Foundation) and that there would be no Millennial reign of Christ. “Great men are not always wise” (Job 32:9). If a man gives a false start in his church history on where the New Testament was written, and then gives a false lead as to who questioned the canonicity of certain books in it,5 and then goes into a false sprint on who preserved it and where it was preserved,6 one should be very suspicious about accepting his conclusions when he finally “breaks the tape.” Such a race (2 Tim. 4:7) was never run on a course (Heb. 12:1) that God set up.

Since the church “fathers” quote the Holy Bible more than 35,000 times (19,368 from the Gospels alone),7 it is perfectly evident that the Book was around somewhere in the first three centuries of church his­tory. Latin translations from it were made around 180-200 A.D.8 Since many of the ancient Syrian and Latin translations agree with the King James text of 1611, men like Schaff, Lightfoot, Driver, Ellicott, and Hort were hard pressed to prove that certain AV readings didn’t exist as far back as that.9 Several lies and several theories were resorted to. The Westcott and Hort theory (and it never was anything more than

a theory) on how the ancient “Received Text” became the text of the Protestant Reformation runs briefly as follows:

1. Since it came from Syria, it should be called a “Byzantine” or “Syrian” type of text, or possibly “Antiochan.”10

2. By dividing all the Greek manuscripts up into “families” Griesbach eliminated thousands of “Syrian readings” from the manu­scripts by pretending that all “Syrian” readings found in other families were there BEFORE they were in the Syrian or Byzantine family.11 This is called “Christian scholarship” at Bob Jones University and Moody Bible Institute.

3. Westcott and Hort then pretended that no church “father” before 400 (or at least 360 A.D.) quoted any “Syrian readings” because they weren’t exclusively Syrian:12 that is, they couldn’t belong to their own family if any other family corroborated the readings. This is called “scholarship” at Wheaton, San Francisco, Lynchburg, and Piedmont.

4. Having erected this Disneyland system of textual criticism they now had to explain how these “Syrian” or “Byzantine” readings sur­vived the Dark Ages—while the Roman Catholic church was retaining the Alexandrian readings of Jerome, Origen, Eusebius, and Constantine —and showed up in time to give the church the greatest Biblical, mis­sionary, evangelistic, and soul-winning period it ever experienced (1500-1900).

5. This was done by pretending that a presbyter named “Lucian”13 revised the New Testament at Constantinople or Antioch and got some­one there to officially sanction and recommend it as the standard Bible for the entire church.'4 It was put together by “recensing” and “conflating” Alexandrian and “Western” readings.15

Now, aside from the fact that there are papyrus fragments from the second and third centuries that have many of the King James read­ings (Syrian) in them, and aside from the fact that the church fathers BEFORE 350 A.D. do quote them,'6 and aside from the fact that the family classification is a hoax,17 and aside from the fact that no auto­graphs of the New Testament were written in Alexandria (and those in the “West” were written from a Roman jail), and aside from the fact that the official and sanctioned text of the church for the next thousand years was NOT Lucian’s “recension,”'9 is the notable absence of any historical account that even mentions any assembly at Constan­tinople or Antioch in the fourth century authorizing ANY Bible or Bible revision. In addition to this is the fact that no historian (secular or sacred) has ever found one particle of evidence that “Lucian” worked on a New Testament “recension” any more than he did a Model-T Ford.

But that is how the pipe dream was concocted in 1881-1884 by Westcott and Hort, and that is how the suckers at Bob Jones University (1940-1980) inhaled the fumes.19

When we arrive in our history at the period 325-400 A.D., we will talk about these matters at length; at the present time (33-90) our concern is with the original autographs versus the oral traditions which arose to contradict what these Bible manuscripts had to say. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament which came to be accepted by the body of Christ as inspired scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) are laid out in the proper dispensational order, indicating the transition from the Old Testament to the New {Matthew—dealing with the King of the Jews), the transition from Israel to the church {Acts—the Jewish apostles), the transition from the church to the tribulation {Hebrews—dealing with Jewish Christians), and the consummation of all things {Revelation). This order has been perverted in the Greek New Testament published by Westcott and Hort for the purpose of misleading the reader in regard to Bible prophecy; in Hort’s grossly corrupt New Testament (1884), the Hebrew-Christian epistles (Catholic epistles, James, and Hebrews—with Jude BEFORE Hebrews) have been placed between the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles. This, dispensationally, would make the church age follow the great tribulation. We might expect such bungling from dead orthodox apostates who invented the Mickey Mouse theory outlined above.20

Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, seven are called ^antde^ome^jby church historians on the grounds that they were “disputed” books by someone and therefore could not be admitted to the canon until “later.”21 Naturally the historians keep a close watch on their mouths when talking about WHO it was that questioned the authority of these books (Gen. 3:1). You are innocently led to believe that the majority of Bible believing Christians “disputed” them because four or five “church fathers” don’t quote them; that is, you are led to the bottomless pit as quickly as the historian can lead you. The seven “disputed” books that are classified as “antilegomena” were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Everyone of these, except Revelation, was misplaced in Hort’s New Testament.22

Now observe: all seven of these books are the so-called “Hebrew- Christian” (or Catholic) epistles. Note also that one of them deals with the mark of the beast, two of them deal with false prophets, and two of them deal with carnal church leaders. Further, two of them (James and Hebrews) seem to conflict with the Pauline epistles (Rom. 4; 5; Eph. 2; etc.).

Without going into a long analysis (which is properly the subject *■ »T — —- * and historical criticism), we may note

that the book of Hebrews, for example, was not written by Paul, accord­ing to the North African church or the Roman Catholic church.23

Now, when the Christians at Carthage (387 A.D.) discussed matters of canonicity, they professed to determine them (after the Holy Spirit had already determined them) by these rules: Was the writer an apos­tle? Is this made clear in the writings themselves? Does the Holy Spirit in the believer bear witness to these writings? Do any of them contradict anything else found in the scriptures? Are they in line with the general tenor of revelation up to now? How has the body of Christ felt about them up to now?

One can see immediately that if it can be proved that Paul didn’t write Hebrews, the question would come up: What apostle wrote it? If no apostle wrote it, should it be in the canon?

In speaking of antilegomena (disputed books) one should observe how certain books could be disputed because they said things that an apostate would not like.24 For example, Dionysius (after Origen) tried to get rid of the apostolic authority of Revelation because neither he nor Origen were Pre-millennialists.25 Gaius (213) likewise rejected the book of Revelation because he was Post-millennial.26 It is Eusebius and Origen (see chapters 5, 8) who put 2 and 3 John on the “disputed” list. Now, Eusebius (see chapter 7, notes 8-17) and Origen (see chapter 5) are not exactly the ultimate in intelligence if judged by either Testa­ment; you probably couldn’t pick two poorer authorities on matters of canonicity unless you picked Clement of Alexandria and Augustine. When you find people like theAlogi and Epiphanius (315-403) disputing New Testament books, they are often just picking up the “party line” from men like these. Eusebius (260-340) quite naturally vacillated in discussing the authorship of Revelation because even with the weight of evidence for it being an apostolic work, he had to reject it due to his relationship with Origen and Constantine. So he blamed the matter on Papias (60-130), who had said it was written by some elder named “John,” but not “John the apostle” (see Problem 7km, 1980).27 Undoubtedly, the book of Revelation was missing from the Syrian Peshitto after Origen set up his school of destructive criticism in Caesarea (216-222). When a man like Origen says that a book is “disputed” one must never forget that he himself accepted the Apocrypha as inspired and thought that Christian instruction for children should not begin with the inspired New Testament books but with Judith and Tobit.26 How reliable is such an “ancient authority”?

The book of Hebrews, Nicols says, was considered to be “in some sense” a work of Paul, by the school at Alexandria.29 The only evi-

dence that it ever was “antilegomena” was that ORIGEN (184-254) knew that “other churches” criticized Alexandria for admitting Hebrews into the canon of scriptures.30 What "other churches”?

Now, the truth (which Philip Schaff sails by like a hydroplane) is that Marcion "the heretic" (110-160) was the man who rejected all seven books of the antilegomena.31 A Roman document from Milan, Italy, doesn’t mention “Hebrews” (Muratorian Fragment, supposedly written around 280 A.D.), but this “fragment” was not written until AFTER Origen (184-254) and Marcion had wavered in regard to believing 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Origen’s pupil (Dionysius of Alex­andria, 265) rejects 2 Peter and Jude, and Cyprian (195-258), who elevated the office of the bishop to a place near the Trinity,32 remained silent about the canonicity of Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Jude until he died. A “disputed book,” then, can be a book which an unsaved infidel didn’t like, and he presented his arguments against it in such an appealing man­ner to the educated, Christian fools who worshipped philosophy13 that suckers like Origen and Eusebius would have doubts about the book.34 Again, a Nicolaitan like Cyprian might question any book (even though he was saved) if it implied that “bishops” are sometimes conceited ras­cals. Since no one knows who wrote the Muratorian Fragment35 and since Origen couldn’t be trusted in matters of Biblical authority as far as you could throw your mother-in-law,36 the discussions about “antilegomena” rapidly assume the proportions of Haeckel’s Ontogeny: an inflated gas balloon.

\‘Pseudepigrapha")refers to those books that were never admitted into the New Testament canon. They are published in a book called The Lost Books of the Bible37 and constitute such gems as “The Acts of Andrew,” “The Apocalypse of Paul,” “The Gospel of Thomas,” the “Acts of Thaddeus,” and so forth. New Testament Apocrypha refers to such extra-canonical books as “The Teaching of the Twelve,” “The Didache” (100 A.D.?), “The Epistles of Clement” (?), “The Shepherd of Hernias,” “The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary,” “The Gospel of Nicodemus,” “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” and so forth. Strangely enough (or not so strangely if you keep your ear to the ground for the truth), two of these fairyland books are found in the Sinaiticus manuscript used by Tischendorf to correct the King James New Testa­ment in about 5,000 places. Vaticanus (B) contains Old Testament Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament38 and Sinaiticus (R) contains New Testament Apocrypha.39 Quite naturally neither Hort, Aland, Metz­ger, Nestle, nor Souter or any other “editor” dared print these Greek manuscripts in their entirety, even though they availed themselves of

them to correct the AV (1611): gutless Conservatives are standard twen­tieth century equipment.

C“Homologoumena *7 is the jawbreaker given by historians to indicate that the twenty-seven New Testament books were accepted as inspired. Athanasius (296-372) lists these twenty-seven books in a pastoral letter, and Gregory of Nazianzen (330-390) lists twenty-six of them (omitting only the book of Revelation)40 before the Council of Carthage ever met. The Council of Carthage (397) was only forced to recognize what God had already established: twenty-seven inspired books.

Schaff has implanted the deadly notion among the scholars of his day (and after his day) that the New Testament canon was formed “on the model of the Old.”4' This deadly poison is inserted with full knowl­edge that the Old Testament scriptures were formed into a canon and preserved by an official priest-class from one tribe.42 The New Testa­ment knows no priesthood but a priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:5); any book written and preserved by them would be unofficial43 and subject to the universal acceptance of the body of Christ, apart from .any ecclesiastical tribunal or council.44 So, Schaff has inserted into real history the Roman Catholic fiction of an official “guardian of the canon, ’ ’ and this is placed into a make-believe “history” which began by mis­representing the nature and work of the New Testament church (see Acts 2 and comments in that commentary).45 Exactly as the AV of 1611 proved itself to be the infallible word of the living God by virtue of its own intrinsic merit (plus the Holy Spirit’s use of it in history), so the twenty-seven books of the New Testament prove to be the inspired words of the living God by virtue of their own merit and the witness of the Author (the Holy Spirit, John 15:20) to those words: and those words only (Rev. 22:19).

Arguments arising in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries con­cerning the authority and power of those living words (see Vol. II) came from the source that all infidelity comes from (Gen. 3:1), and in the “church age” it is inexorably connected with Christian education and the first Christian university at Alexandria, Egypt, through the devas­tating “ministries” of Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Constantine, Clement, and Augustine.

Polycarp (69-155) quotes Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and ten of Paul’s epistles. The anonymous Catholic forger of 2 Clement46 quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and shows familiarity with Acts, Rev­elation, and six Pauline epistles.47 Irenaeus (125-192) quotes all four of the Gospels and the book of Acts, plus thirteen Pauline epistles. Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quotes four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline

epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation. When these quotations are combined (plus Tertullian, 150-200), we find all twenty-seven New Testament books in use before the year 200 A.D. With an Old Latin version being quoted around 150-180 A.D. and an Old Syriac version being quoted about the same time,48 there is no doubt about the existence of a New Testament in the local churches. They have it. Since it had to be copied by hand into thousands of copies,49 the original manuscripts were so battered with being carried about and copied that they could not have lasted fifty years if they had been writ­ten on India paper.

The current fable (check any of the twentieth century theories by any man connected with Bob Jones University or the Lockman Foun­dation) that this New Testament was preserved in a “pure” or “neutral” state in Alexandria, Egypt, is really too funny for words.30 In the Bible, Egypt is a type of this world, and God would not tolerate His Son (Matt. 2), or His nation (Exod. 12-15), His saints (Gen. 50:5), or even the bones of His saints (Exod. 13:19) to stay there. Not one writer ever got close enough to Alexandria to salute the Sphinx. If such a thing as an “Alexandrian family” of manuscripts ever did exist, it was a fam­ily of outlaws instead of “in-laws,” and it would be about as related to purity of belief and practice as a worn out set of the works of Homer.31

Authors and scholars differ about the dates for the various writings of the New Testament books. Undoubtedly, the book of James and the book of Hebrews were written much earlier than most authors give them credit for: dates for those books before Acts 12 would not be inappro­priate. In the case of Hebrews, 35-40 A.D. would not be too early. The so-called “Synoptic Problem” is dealt with in our work on Problem Texts, and the ton of floss candy spun out by “leading authorities” on the subject (see for example thirty-three pages of ring-around-the-rosy in Schaff32) is about as enlightening for a student of church history as following the path of a leaky balloon.

The New Testament was written; it was written on cheap paper called “papyrus.” Undoubtedly it assumed the modem book form (codex) long before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, since the copies of the originals were made by ordinary people, not professional scribes.33 Ordinary people in those days were proclaiming the “GOOD NEWS” publicly on the streets and in the marketplaces. It would have been a little ridiculous to have to take a fourteen foot scroll and roll it back and forth before a “prospect” to show him the cross-references between Matthew, Paul, Isaiah, and James. Soul-winners have always had more sense about these matters than scholars, and that is why no

consistent soul-winner is ever caught with a new version (ASV, New ASV, IV, New IV) that erases the clear verse markings in the New Testament. These fancy new “paragraph” Bibles are not made for mil­itant street preachers or aggressive soul-winners: they were made for hothouse “Biblicists.”

What the Christians had between 100-325 A.D. was not the “divinely inspired originals” from the “plenary, verbal autographs,” etc., for there was only ONE original for each of these books. What they had was a BIBLION (“a little book”). This little Book, in the New Testament, sets forth the Greek orthography and Greek grammar of Greece, not the Alexandrian Greek of ROME.54 It displayed the Syrian type text found in Asia Minor, not in Rome. It was borne witness to at Pella in Palestine (80 A.D.), in Antioch in 100 A.D., in Syria in 150 A.D., in the Italic church in Italy in 180 A.D., in the Gallic church in southern France in 200 A.D., in the Celtic church in England in 300 A.D.,33 in the Balkans and Germany in 400 A.D.; and it is corrobo­rated throughout the history of every Bible believing group that rejected infant baptism from 400 A.D. to 1980. It is the Received Text of the Albigenses, Vaudois, Petrobrusians, Bulgarians, Paulicians, Paterines, Bogomiles, Baptists, and Huguenots,36 and it bears no resemblance to the ghastly counterfeits of the twentieth century (ASV, New ASV, IV, NIV, RSV, NRSV) than to a Roman Catholic missal.

The modern Bible believer, then, has a historical document in his hand that can be traced back to the remotest antiquity; that is, if he possesses a King James 1611 Authorized Version. The witnesses to “the original Greek text” appear in the German translations from Erasmus, in the French translations from Olivetan and LeClerc,37 in the Italian translations from Diodati,58 in the Old Latin of the Waldenses and Albigenses, in the Gothic of Ulfilas, in the Greek uncial manuscripts (W and A), in the vast majority of cursive manuscripts (98%),39 in the lectionaries of the primitive church,60 and in the writings of the church fathers as far back as two hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were forged at Alexandria (or Caesarea).61 The papyrus (second and third centuries) bear witness to this text.62 The Old Syriac (180) bears witness to this text.63 It is the God-honored Greek text preserved through Erasmus, Colinaeus, Beza, Elzevir and Stephanus, and the God-honored English text as found in Tyndale (1525), the Geneva Bible (1562), and in the King James 1611 Authorized Version. Its corrupt counterfeits come from the “Alexandrian” text (see chapter 5) out of the greatest sink­hole of corruption known in the ancient world. This depraved, gnostic Bible” is represented in modern times by the Greek texts of Tischen-

dorf, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Nestle, Lachmann, Griesbach, and Scholtz. It is represented in modem English translations by the RK, RSV, New RSV, ASV, New ASV, NIV, and the NEB, plus the last thirty “updated versions. Its patrons were Origen, Eusebius, Constantine, Hitler, Loyola, Walton, Fell, the faculty members at Pensacola Christian College, Bloody Mary, Castro, Torquemada, Jerome, Tully, Metternich, Cardinal Spellman, Mill, Hort, Ted Kennedy, the faculty members at Bob Jones University,64 Wallenstein, Napoleon, and Pope John Paul II. We shall deal with it in more detail in our chapter on Africa’s Most Unusual University.

We now turn our attention to more practical matters. When we last saw the local church (Acts 28), Paul, its leading preacher and evange­list, was in jail; it was a Roman jail. This is very important to remember, for it was Rome which whipped and nailed Jesus Christ (Matt. 27) to the cross (Acts 4:27); it was Rome who imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:3-4); it was Rome who had James’ head cut off (Acts 12:1-2); and it was Rome which exiled John to Patmos (Rev. 1:9). Those are not the religious theories of a bigot or the denominational beliefs of a “trouble maker. ” Those are the black and white, documented facts of a bloody history recorded with the inspired pen by the eyewitnesses who observed them.

So, church history not only must begin with a description of the nature and work of the local assembly and the origin of its infallible constitution, it must also begin with Rome: Augustus (31 B.C.-14 A.D.), Tiberius (12-37 A.D.), Caligula (37-41 A.D.), Nero (54-68 A.D.), Galba (68-69 A.D.), Vespasian (69-79 A.D.), and Domitian (81-96 A.D.). That is, the New Testament local assembly of Bible believers (a “church”) is first found in direct conflict with a CHURCH STATE.65 It is a ROMAN church state which is denominated as a “WHORE” in Revelation 17:1-5. This “woman” (Rev. 17:3) is also identified in Matthew 13:33 by our Lord Jesus Christ. She is identified as the implanter of false doctrine (Matt. 16:11-12) which is designed to cor­rupt an entire loaf of “good meal” (Gal. 5:9). The words are no sooner out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ than Philip Schaff, Dollinger, Alford, Ferrar, Calvin, Latourette, Augustine, Origen, and Thomas Aquinas slap them back into His mouth and insist that the Whore just identified is the Bride of Christ, and the corrupting leaven is the Gos­pel of the Grace of God! That is, before the New Testament has been completed (2 Cor. 2:17) Satan is already in position with his “GODLY” men and is ready to operate (Gen. 3:1). In our chapter on “Africa’s Most Unusual University” we will note that he had begun to corrupt

Old Testament books before the first New Testament books were ever penned (2 Cor. 2:17).

Rome and Jerusalem are the focal points in church history until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. under Titus.66 Since all his­tory moves from east to west (see Gen. 4:8-16 in that commentary), Jerusalem practically drops out of sight after 70 A.D. and the narrative of church history moves us into Asia Minor (Rev. 1-3), and thence to Greece (Acts 16; 17), and then finally—not at the start, or near the start—to Rome (Acts 28). The Bible has clearly identified Rome and things “Roman.” Whatever counter-publicity she may have obtained through the popes, the Associated Press, the BBC, Bing Crosby, the Kennedy family, Notre Dame, the Oxford Movement, Perry Como, and Loyola University is easily offset by the Divine record written and preserved in eternity (Ps. 119:89; Matt. 24:35). Rome, as a spiritual or religious entity, cannot be credited with one righteous or moral act (in the Biblical sense) since the city was founded, if we are to believe the God-given record (Matt. 2) as given to us by the Holy Ghost (Acts 12:1-5; 18:2). If “all roads lead to Rome,” then the road to Hell will have to be paved with Alexandrian manuscripts and Christian scholarship.

The zenith of the Roman Empire is between 46 and 180 A.D. At the same time there is the rise of the New Testament local churches— the called-out assemblies of baptized believers. When Rome receives its Bible, it receives the corrupt North African “bible” of Alexandria.67 When Rome plays host to the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:16), she jails him the first time and beheads him the second time (2 Tim. 4:6). When Rome tries Jesus Christ (John 19), she releases a murderer (John 18:40). When Rome has custody of an apostle, she seeks to mur­der him (Acts 12:4). Since Peter never set foot in Rome before 60 A.D. (see Rom. 15:20-22), Paul was very careful not to address him when he wrote the epistles to the Romans (Rom. 16:1-16); he addressed nearly everyone else but Peter. When Rome is faced with her bloody crimes (Rev. 17:4-7), in and out of the Biblical record, her answer is that these crimes were actually committed by PAGAN Rome, not PAPAL Rome; that is, Rome before Domitian (96 A.D.). Foxe ’s Book of Martyrs, which lists the countless crimes of papal Rome (400-1800 A.D.), more than answers this lying alibi. Papal Rome has murdered more Christians in fifty years than pagan Rome murdered in a hundred years (70-170 A.D.). Any church history, therefore, that ignores what the Bible says about Rome is covering up for Satan in the interests of falsehood.

If “Rome never changes” as the “eternal city,” then the murders Colombia (1953-1959)68 and the murders hv the nanal in

1940-1944 were to be expected.69 No one should be surprised to find that Adolph Hitler (a Roman Catholic) had Hermann Goering (a Roman Catholic) set up the first concentration camp at Dachau under a Roman Catholic (Rudolph Diels, and later Eicke), who in turn obeyed Himmler and Heydrich (who were both Roman Catholics). Franz Stangl, the Com­mandant of Treblinka, was a Catholic as was Koch at Buchenwald and Rudolph Hoess at Auschwitz. Rome never changes. A Communist “pope” (John Paul II) will not improve matters, for Communists are dialectical materialists who believe that human beings are advanced animals without souls,70 and therefore they are fit subjects for concen­tration camps bigger than Buchenwald and better than Auschwitz.


The Fiery Furnace

“Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings....” 1 Peter 4:12-13

Simon Peter says that our example in suffering is the Lord Jesus Christ, whom we are to “follow” (1 Peter 2:21). The only sinless man this world ever dealt with was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3). His greatest follower (1 Tim. 1:16) had to fill up the measure of those sufferings (Col. 1:24). When God saved Paul, He had his work already cut out for him (Acts 9:16); it was to be a ministry of SUFFERING (2 Cor. 11:23-28). No attempt by any mod­em theologian or scholar of any profession of faith can ever remove this plank from the platform of New Testament faith or whittle it down to the size of a broom handle. The apostles suffered (Acts 12:1-5). They encouraged their followers to bear up under suffering (1 Peter 2:19-24) and to endure hardness as soldiers (2 Tim. 2:3-4). The battle-scarred veteran who has been “bloodied” in a dozen “fire fights” is the pat­tern held up for the New Testament believer (1 Cor. 11:1) to follow, even down to the armor and equipment (see Eph. 6:10 and comments in that commentary).

These elementary matters should be noted, as it is the custom these days for scholars, historians, and theologians alike to fashion Paul after their own image or the images of their bookish friends, forgetting that they themselves do not preach on the streets, do not get involved in nots or court actions, do not witness to kings by “telling them off’ about their sins, and have done nothing “publickly, and from house to house” (Acts 20:20) but eat cake and drink coffee. Paul’s lambast­ing the leading Greek scholars of his day (see Acts 17:23 and comments in that commentary) and calling them “superstitious” idolaters (Acts

17:22) hardly puts him in a class with A.T. Robertson, S.E. Anderson, Yaeger, Trench, Kenneth Wuest, Spiros Zodhiates, and Hort (see the Pauline Obsession, introduction). The word “witness” is the transla­tion of papTup^co—transliterated, this is a MARTYR. Stephen, the first New Testament martyr, is from Lx6<pavo<; (Stephanos), which means “a CROWN.” God’s witnesses are marked by the disturbing effects of their lives (Acts 21:27-32) and, often, their violent deaths (2 Peter 1:14), not by their ‘‘love for each other’ ’ and their tolerance of Christ- dishonoring Bible translations. They are marked by their cheerfulness under persecution (Acts 7:59), not their “scholarly exegesis” and their “grasp of the original languages.”

If we are to believe the historians of early church history, the first real Christian witnesses were fanatics in the exact sense of the word.1 One writer has stated that they committed the crime of bringing Jesus Christ out of the Temple and scattering Him all over the neighborhood. They lived like sheep, they prayed like saints, they preached like lions, and they died like flies. Ignatius is so anxious to get his head in the mouth of a lion2 that he goes to the cage in the Coliseum and hollers: “Come on out! Come out of there!”3 Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (pp. 13-33) is replete with witnesses who “sailed through bloody seas” to win the prize (Rev. 2:10). Paul’s conduct itself, if one considers it seriously (see Acts 14:20 and comments in that commentary), resembles that of a maniac depressive with suicidal tendencies (Phil. 1:23). If this type of personality is not pictured in 2 Corinthians 11:22-28, what is? Could any man have that many things happen to him who was trying to be “careful” like David Nunn, Marvin Gormann, Jimmy Swaggert, Kenneth Copeland, or John R. Rice? Paul is not just careless, he is down­right reckless at times (Acts 20:22-23). In spite of Origen’s later defection from the faith, due to his “Christian” education (see chapter 5), Origen at one time was ready to die on the spot for Jesus Christ. Polycarp (69-155) is finally stabbed to death after several unsuccessful attempts to bum him.4 According to tradition, all of the apostles died violently,5 and although we cannot prove this, we may well expect it. Certainly Peter, James, Paul, and John (as well as Stephen) received treatment in the New Testament that wouldn’t exactly meet UNESCO standards fora “bill of human rights.” Christians never “demonstrated for their rights” anywhere in the New Testament; they considered themselves to be bond slaves of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:20), knocked down on the block. They would have no more thought of saying, “Iprefer this read­ing” or “this is the church of my choice," than they would of saying, “a better translation should be” or “it is unfortunate the tense is not

brought out in this verb,” etc. No Christian talked that way or thought that way. Those expressions are removed from apostolic Christianity by more than eighteen centuries.

When we focus our observations on the ten imperial persecutions (67-313 A.D.) under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Severus, Macrinus, Decius, Aurelian, Diocletian, and Galerius, we see clearly the difference between an orthodox Christian theologian and a dedicated Bible believer; or to put it another way, the vast difference between an educated Christian scholar and a Bible believing preacher. If they could ever get together (as they certainly did on the translation committee of 1611, under King James), they would produce a transla­tion that would not only be accurate and readable; they would produce a spiritual masterpiece forged in fire and hammered out on the anvil of practical experience. All things being equal, what possible competi­tion do you suppose any American revision committee from 1900-1980 would be to a committee set up just after the reign of Bloody Mary and the fires of Smithfield (1553-1558)? If Rome remains true to her character as described in the Bible, don’t you know that God’s method of cooperating with a Bible committee who knew that, recognized it, believed it, and had experienced it (1611) would be different than His attitude towards a committee of egotistical, air-conditioned, heady, high- minded, apostate stuffed shirts, basking in a country with the highest standard of living in the world, a country that until 1979 had never been controlled by Rome? There wasn’t one man on the committee of the King James Bible who didn’t know someone who had a friend, or the relative of a friend, who was burned at the stake for calling the Roman Catholic mass what it was: a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit (Anglican Articles of Faith, no. 31). All things being equal—that is, assuming the members of the AV committee were as smart as any of your teachers and as “godly”—why wouldn’t God have blessed their translation more than some commercial gimmick out of the USA, pub­lished by a bunch of hucksters who wanted to gain prestige and royalties?

Now, all things were NOT equal (see chapter 18). The AV trans­lators were much more intelligent in dealing with the corrupt readings of Vaticanus (B), which they had on their tables in the Jesuit Rheims version of 1582.6 Origen and company didn’t fool them for a minute.7 All things were certainly not “equal.” The AV translators recognized Constantine and Jerome’s footprints immediately,8 and they absolutely refused to put the Apocrypha in their translation as part of the inspired and sacred text.9 Furthermore, they were not hoodwinked for a moment y such Alexandrian readings as those found in Luke 23:42; Luke 2:33;

Luke 24:51, 52; Colossians 1:14; Acts 8:37; 1 Timothy 3:16; etc., which succeeded in bamboozling the superstitious scholars on the Lockman Foundation (New ASVand Amplified Version). All things were certainly not equal when a comparison is made between the spoiled, well-fed, over-paid, top-heavy apostates of 1901-1980 (ASV, NIV, and New ASV) and the anti-Roman Catholic veterans who sat down in 1607 to place the living words of the living God into the hands of the English speaking people. Their motive was different, and this is manifest in their Dedi­catory remarks; their method was different, and this is manifest in the “Preface to the Reader”;10 their attitude about themselves was different; their attitude about the material they were handling was different, and, above all, their attitude about GOD was different.

Now, the peculiar obsession which the modem apostate Fundamen­talist has, to project himself back into the role of a “militant witness” or “battle-hardened soldier” we have called the Pauline Obsession (see introduction, notes 4, 5, 6). In brief, it means the attempts of historians (especially church historians) and scholars to rig up little “roll calls” where they themselves, or their friends, fall into the ranks which include the real soldiers of the cross. (See “The Campfire Girls” in Problem Texts, 1980.) The obsession, as it is related to Paul, seems to be that since he did so much important writing (and he did), and since he pre­sented so much New Testament doctrine (and he did), and since he was an educated theologian (and he was), that Tillich, Barth, MacRae, Laird, Harris, Afman, Archer, Weniger, Walvoord, Olson, E.S. English, Brunner, Panosian, and Lewis Sperry Chafer are like Paul. They are not in the least like Paul. They are no more “Pauline” in their minis­tries that what we call “the dry cleaning establishment” (Greaterex, Moore, O’Hair, Stam, Baker, Bullinger, Sharpe, etc.) who fancy that because they preach two truths extracted from two New Testament epistles (2 Cor. 5 and Eph. 3:1-4) that they are “like Paul.” They are not in the least like Paul; the nearest thing to Paul alive on this earth today would be someone like Lester Roloff, Richard Wurmbrand, Haralan Popov, or Alex Dunlap (recently deceased), and even these men have wives and children. Paul had no wife, no children, no home, no camel, no car, no church, no school, no stocks, no bonds, no social security, no pension, no insurance, no buses, and no tax-exempt prop­erty; as a matter of fact, he didn’t even have a burial plot. To liken such a Christian to a modem Christian in America or England—know­ing that Paul’s “standard” of living was “food and raiment’’ (1 Tim. 6:8)—is an absurd comparison that only a conceited imagination could cook up. The apostle Paul, standing alongside men like Bob Jones, HL

Oral Roberts; John R. Rice; Jimmy Swaggert; Bill Gothard; Arlin Horton; or Rex Humbard would look like a German Shepherd on the flanks of six Chihuahuas.

A man with 195 whip lashes on him is not to be classified with overweight promoters of tax-exempt corporations or smooth, slick kiddie teachers (2 Cor. 11:24). Somebody has gotten their wires hooked up wrong or disconnected altogether. Augustine (see chapter 6) could not have gotten close enough to a man of Paul’s stature to pick him up on a telescope. When we have to speak of men “like Paul” in church his­tory, we will be taking second and third “bests” every time, but even these “also-rans” (2 Tim. 4:7) should never include such a motley crew as Beecher; Weatherhead; Tillich; Michael Luther King, Jr.; Abernathy; Fulton Sheen; Popes Pius IX, X, XI, and XII; Barth; Brunner; Pope Paul VI; or Pope John XXIII. The Catholic popes are entirely out of the question, as none of them resemble Paul in any way, shape, or form. Paul wouldn’t let anyone think of crowning him (Acts 14:15); Peter wouldn’t let a man even bow in front of him (Acts 10:26). Paul on a gold throne, mouthing pious platitudes to the press about “peace,” “human rights,” and the “downtrodden masses” would be funnier than a Porky Pig cartoon. Imagine the apostle to the Romans (Paul—Rom. 15:16) wearing a gold ring and carrying bejeweled statues around11 to give to political rulers so that he could get a chance to use United Nations tax money for parochial schools!12 Imagine that!

Paul is called to suffer (Acts 9). Peter says that we are to follow those steps (1 Peter 2). In the first and second centuries of the church those steps were followed, and many a child of God, male and female, young and old, rich and poor, had to place his bare feet into the foot­prints of the nail-pierced soles of the Saviour and follow Him through Gethsemane, into the judgment hall (John 18), and eventually to the stake (John 19). God crowns his children amidst the splashing of blood, the roaring of flames, and the howling of wild beasts. Nearly all Chris­tians are familiar with the famous painting called “The Last Prayer.” There stands the “bishop”—the ordained elder of the flock (1 Tim. 3:1-8). Is he clothed in purple and scarlet? Does he sit on a marble throne in a basilica? Where is his triple tiara crown?13 No beads? No maniple”? No “cincture”? No “humeral veil”? No gold rings? No: he has been stripped down to “food and raiment,’’ and now the lions are about to eat him for their food and leave his blood-soaked raiment m the sand for the slaves to rake up. Who is it that has brought him to this place? IT IS ROME (Rev. 17).

Most Christians are familiar with (or should be familiar with) Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, edited by Forbush. Since this book was on the Roman

Catholic “Index” as forbidden reading, it could not be used in the pub­lic school system in America as a textbook for church history. Bigots are deathly afraid of any negative truth in history that exposes their devilment. The documented facts in Foxe’s book, testified to many times by eyewitnesses, must be shoved under the rug for the sake of “peace” and “unity.” This is done by either saying that the historical facts were lies written by people who wanted to “spread hate,” or that since past is past, it cannot possibly happen again. For example, the way that mod­em historians get rid of the documented negative facts presented by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (testified to by eyewitnesses) is that they simply say they are “FICTION.”14 You throw away the peel and eat the inside and pretend that bananas don’t have skins: they do. J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI never stated it more truthfully when he said that all Commu­nists accent THE POSITIVE.15 The way to ensnare every generation is just pretend that the past historical events didn’t really happen, or else pretend that they have no bearing on the future (Eccl. 1:1-10).

Who are these multitudes in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (pp. 11-40)? Are they Christian celebrities? Are they members of the scholars union? Do you suppose that any of them were smart enough to correct the Bible in 36,000 places (RV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NIV, NRSV) ? Who are these nameless thousands who are torn to pieces with hooks, laid on red-hot grills, rolled on broken glass, pulled apart by horses, eaten by wild beasts, whipped, and starved to death? They were baptized Bible believ­ers who believed in standing for their Biblical convictions in the face of a Church State16 that rejected the Bible as the final authority for human conduct on this earth. Where the Bible said one thing (Acts 5:29) and the “powers that be” said another, these Christians stuck to the Book and paid for it with their lives. To them the imperial decrees of Caesar were sawdust alongside the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1-5) when they dealt with religious matters. The issue between them and Caesar was the same issue that arose in Genesis 3:1 and continues to this day. Did God say it or did He not? If He did, it is the highest authority on the face of this earth and it is to be obeyed without question (James 4:17; 1:22). If He said it, then what some church thinks it ought to be or should be is immaterial. If any church doesn’t agree with it, then that church is in error at that point. Authority was the original issue (Isa. 14:10-16, Ezek. 28:11-17). It never had anything to do with “the fundamentals of the faith” or the “teachings of Christ” or “life-styles’ or “Christian values.” Sacraments and “liturgy” were not even secondary issues. The issue in the beginning was AUTHORITY (Isa. 14:11-15), for the words spoken in Isaiah 14:13 were spoken before

there was any human life on this planet (Job 38:4-8). Rome, as a polit­ical state, claimed religious authority17 as a divine government. When Augustine transferred this lying profession to the Catholic Church (see chapter 6), he was merely restating Rome’s ancient blasphemy in “Cath­olic” terms (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1970). The structure of the Catholic and Orthodox churches is the structure of the pagan Roman Empire from top to bottom:

1. The Emperor, whose counterpart became the Pope.

2. The Senate, whose counterpart became the College of Cardinals.

3. The Imperial Governor, who became the Patriarch or Archbishop.

4. The Provincial Governor, who became the “Metropolitan” or Bishop.

5. The Civitas, which became the priests.

6. And then beneath all, on the bottom of the pile, HUMANITY.18 Now, the Christians who came up under the domination of this

Christ-killing (Acts 4:27), apostle-jailing (Acts 12:1-4), Bible-rejecting (Acts 24:25), Jew-hating (Acts 18:2), apostate Whore (Rev. 17) were the primary targets for several reasons, but by far and away the crucial complaint was nonconformity to the world system. Bible believing Chris­tians would not “fall in line”;19 they were nonconformists (Heb. 13:13-14). In the first place they would not conform to the HEW regu­lations of OSH A and UNESCO in their day. Loyal subjects of the State were often required to offer incense and prayers for the lives and welfare of the bureaucrats in the government as well as for Caesar.20 Many Christians would not conform to these government “guidelines.” Christians often had night assemblies (Acts 20:7), so these after-dark meetings were looked upon by the Roman IRS and the Roman HEW as sources of potential revolt against the government.

Not to be outdone by Rome, Soviet Russia today (and since 1921) imprisons anyone suspected of potentially planning something that might later possibly “become” an anti-government movement.21 The trick is absolute control of the private life of every citizen so that those in power can stay in power. In Soviet Russia, for example (1980), the constitution (1936) states that women have equal rights with all men, that there is freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and that there is racial equality.22 What does this mean PRACTICALLY or in actuality? Well, it simply means that if you pray in front of your family at your table and your children tell the NKVD about it, you get ten years in a concentration camp.23 There is no exaggeration or “overstatement.” ose who did it are THERE. There are no articles in the Russian con­

stitution that guarantee freedom of RELIGION: only freedom of speech and press!

In addition to “after-dark services on Sunday night,” there was a notable lack of idols, figurines, pictures, and beads in the houses of the Bible believing Christians. The Romans had as many gods as a mod­em television viewer; there were gods who taught the baby how to stand, gods who taught him how to talk and walk, gods who protected the house at night, gods who blessed the veranda, the hearth, the table, the prison, the stable, and even the “cat houses.” Brothels were blessed by pagan priests with generous amounts of holy water and prayers.24 In such an environment, with a shelf of gods in every house, the Chris­tian appeared in the role of an atheist: he could not produce his “God” (John 4:24).

Since idol making was an international industry (Acts 19:27), Chris­tians were not “good for business.” They hurt the “market potential.”

But above all, as we have said, the main objection to a Christian was the fact that he would not conform. If all of theQroops jp the army stepped forward to offer incense to Diana (so the army could win a military campaign), the Bible believers in the ranks refused to step forward; consequently, many of them were executed on the spot. If the contemporary^dfess styles)were seductive or immodest (1 Tim. 2:9), the Christian women refused to be “stylish.” If everyone went to the ffiiper BowT)(Coliseum) on Sunday to watch the “play-offs” between the gladiators and the wild beasts, thd£hristians were noticably absent, The government made up for this loss in attendance by requesting them to be present in the arena as the star attraction. What Rome had against the Christian was what the Pharisees and Sadducees had against Christ: He wasn’t one of them (John 5:18), and He wouldn’t fellowship with them. Satan will forgive a Christian anything as long as he will conform to the world system (John 17:14). What Satan requires is CONFOR­MITY ; without conformity it is impossible for the devil to bring in his own kingdom (Dan. 11:21) and put his own “Christ” (Luke 2:26) on the throne (Rev. 13:1-6). Conformity must be enforced in Satan’s system (Rev. 13:14-18) because the tares have to be “bound in bundles” (Matt. 13:30) before they are burned. Rome set out to enforce conformity to its political and religious system, which in the New Testament is stated as belonging to Satan (Luke 4:6; 2 Cor. 4:4).

The first organized persecution (officially) took place in Bithynia during the governorship of Pliny the Younger (112 A.D.). Pliny would have the Christians brought before his tribunal and would ask them three times if they were a Christian. They could “chicken out” anytime during

these three interrogations, but if the answer was “yes” three times in a row, they were sentenced to death.25 There were, of course, spas­modic persecutions by Roman emperors before this time (Nero and Domitian: 51-96 A.D.). Paul was beheaded during Nero’s reign (90-96 A.D.). The charge brought against Bible believing Christians in nearly every case was simple: odio humani generis,26 which means “hatred of the human race.” Thus the outstanding mark of a Bible believing Christian turns out not to be “behold how they love one another,” but rather “behold their hate literature,” and “the hatred in their preach­ing” and their lack of a “sweet spirit of Christ”; they were hell-raising, antisocial troublemakers. They were against “THE people” (see Acts 21:28 and comments in that commentary). The accounts of the Neronian persecution are found in the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dion Cassius, Tertullian, Severus, and Clement of Rome. The persecution was so vicious that apostates later (Jerome and Augustine) read Revelation 13 back into the past and pretended that the Antichrist had already come and gone (Nero), so the Whore of Revelation 17 could not possibly be the Roman Catholic church state: rather she had been pagan Rome, in the past.27 Philip Schaff, the head of the ASVcommittee (1901), quite naturally took this position.28 With him are three apostates of the RV committee (1881-1884), Lightfoot, Hort, and Westcott, and, quite nat­urally, all the unsaved German rationalists of German higher criticism (1700-1900) take exactly the same viewpoint. DeWette (1780-1849) and Ewald (1840) take the same view, and Schaff confesses that DeWette is a SKEPTICAL CRITIC.29 Siding with these formidable opponents of the Protestant Reformation text stand all the popes, all the cardinals, the Society of “Jesus” (Jesuits), plus Eichhorn, Clericus, Wettstein, Davidson, and the authors and promoters of the Graf-Wellhausen “humpty-dumpty theology” for the Old Testament (see Gen. 16:7-10 and comments in that commentary). It also happens to be the position (by the wildest coincidence) of B.B. Warfield, A.T. Robertson, and J G. Machen.

The emperor Diocletian, as the popes, liked to be called “lord” and “god.”30 As the popes, he fancies himself to be God’s representa­tive on this earth,31 and therefore he is above criticism or judgment.32 Domitian exiled Christians and had them killed right and left. Mark and Andrew were supposed to have been martyred under his reign. Ignatius was thrown to the lions on December 20, 115 A.D., which during Trajan’s reign was a mercy; he was known to have prescribed the rack for women under eighteen years old.33

Ignatius (50-115 A.D.) was a bishop of Antioch (Acts 11:26; 13:1-2) and therefore should receive special attention in a Biblical church his­

tory, for as we have seen, Antioch (not Rome or Alexandria) was the center of Bible believing Gentile Christianity.34 From this location came the Syrian texts of the Syrian-type Greek New Testaments35 which later made up the Textus Receptus of the King James Bible. Ignatius was brought before Trajan, the Roman “holy father” at Antioch, in the ninth year of Trajan’s reign. With regard to the sentence passed upon him, Ignatius said that he would pray for the beasts to be ready for him, and that he would go up and pat them if they didn’t get aggressive. If they didn’t fall on him, he would “bring them to it by force.”36 Schaff calls this desire for martyrdom a “morbid fanaticism.”37

Calvin calls the Ignatian epistles (see the letters to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp of Smyrna) “abominable trash.”38 Why would Calvin do this? It must be that not all that is called “Ignatius” is “of’ Ignatius. Now, the small print on the Epistles of Ignatius runs into five pages in Schaff’s history.39 Schaff accepts as “genuine” seven short GREEK epistles and rejects as genuine three short SYRIAN epis­tles. The seven short GREEK ones are the ones that Calvin put on the manure pile. All of this should be highly instructive to the Bible believer who knows where Antioch of Syria is (Acts 11:26). It is not in Greece: it is in Syria. Furthermore, adhering to the Westcott and Hort ecclesi­astical dictum that the “shorter reading is to be preferred over the longer one,”40 Schaff accepts a shorter Greek copy over a longer Greek copy but refuses to accept the shortest of all because that copy was in SYRIAC. If Ignatius was bishop of Antioch in Syria, why would not this copy be the “closest to the originals”—to borrow the standard alibi used by Bob Jones University for promoting Roman Catholic Bibles (ASV, New ASV, etc.)? Simple: the Syrian copy did not contain the magic word “CATHOLIC, ’’ which appears for the first time in the history of the church in a forged Greek copy of “The Epistles of Ignatius. ”41 The church historian will violate his own principles of textual criticism and manuscript evidence in order to prove something that isn’t so.

It is also the Syriac copies which omit the panegyric on the episcopal hierarchy; the Bible also omits it. The word “Catholic” was borrowed from Greek philosophy (see Col. 2:8 and comments in that commen­tary). Not only do the Syriac originals omit this essential word of death, hell, and destruction but they also omit the statement that the “Eucha­rist” is the dead flesh of Jesus Christ’s corpse “resurrected. ” The Bible also omits both items. In short, Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) is not a good place for Romans to go to unless they can change Syriac into Greek and then appeal to Greek philosophy (Col. 2:8) to drive home

a point. In this case, the entire system (the Roman church from 325-1980 A.D.) is named after a Greek philosophical term found in a forged doc­ument: there is no such thing as a “Catholic” church in ANY Bible. More than that, the term means “wholly given to a CAT,’’ and the “Cat” (alone) is the word for “MOTHER” if one traces the Greek back into Sanskrit roots. “Holy Mother Church” (see chapter 14) is named after an animal which appears nowhere in either Testament: the word “CAT” is found nowhere in the scripture (see Mark of the Beast, 1959, 1970).

The next emperor, Hadrian (117-138), erected temples for Jupiter (see Acts 14:12 and comments in that commentary) and Venus on the Temple site at Jerusalem and on the supposed site of the crucifixion.

Poly carp (69-155 A.D.) was martyred under Antoninus Pius (137-161)—note the famous surname “Pius,” adopted by so many popes. The material on his death is found in the works of Waddington, Wieseler, Keim, and others. He was burned at the stake at the age of eight-six years, and tradition states that he had to be put to death with the sword before the flames would kindle on his body.42

Like Ignatius, Polycarp is courted by the Great Mother Cat. Rum­maging through a variety of “epistles”—some spurious and some genuine—the later popes found the expression “faith is the mother of us all.”43 Since this blatantly contradicted the clear statement of the Bible about the matter (Gal. 4:26), it was adopted immediately. Later, this anti-scriptural heresy was developed into the following formulas:

1. God is your Father; the church (Catholic) is your mother.

2. Since “FAITH” is your mother, only the Catholic faith can be a mother.

3. A mother gives birth, so the new birth is confined to “THE FAITH that is the MOTHER of us all,” i.e., Roman Catholicism.

4. Holy Mother Church (CAT) can give a sinner the new birth.44 If this seems like misrepresentation by one who is “prejudiced,”

let the skeptical bigot who believes everything he reads in newspapers (and nothing he reads in the Bible) obtain any standard Roman Catholic catechism (nihil obstat) printed by any Catholic publishing house at any time in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, or twentieth centuries. The position they give is the position of Cyprian (195-258), who was no more a Bible believer than F.F. Bruce or Norman Vincent Peale.45

At this point in history (100-200 A.D.), where the corpses of the martyrs begin to be venerated as religious objects (fetishism) and martyrdom becomes the test of a true “saint,” the dangerous seeds of

heresy find fertile ground, for who could resist believing a man’s the­ology who loved God enough to die for Him? Isn’t such a man pretty “godly”? Who would be a better carrier of false doctrine than such a man—a “good, godly” man who loved the Lord enough to lay down his life for Him? Wouldn’t false doctrine from such a man act much quicker in the leavening process (Matt. 13:33) than doctrine from a man, say, like Marcion the “heretic”? Or a “Liberal” (1900)? Or a “Neo­Evangelical” (1970)? So, at this point, the body of Christ makes preparations to start down the road into Bible rejection even before Constantine grants his imperial decrees of toleration (313 A.D.). The ground is paved by the Ante-Nicene “fathers” (Matt. 23:9)—“call no man your father upon the earth”; and although we cannot throw stones when it comes to the spiritual and devotional life of many of these men or their personal purity and courage, we are betraying the word of God and the truth of God (John 17:17) if we allow them to prevail upon us with their opinions and “preferences” that clearly contradict God Almighty (John 17:17; Heb. 4:12; Prov. 30:6). No Bible believer can afford to adopt the modern religion (1980) or humanism as a substitute for believing God, no matter how “godly” the “humans” are. Human­ism is the religion of the Communists and Catholics (1980-1990) who are dedicated to the total annihilation of every Bible believer on this earth.

There are no divided loyalties in these matters. Loyalty to God is never to be displaced for the Second Commandment, even if the “neigh­bor” involved is a martyr. Where divided loyalties are courted, a dual authority is erected, and this is exactly what the Council of Trent (1546) stated to be the truth for every Roman Catholic in America, under the pain of damnation by God. The decrees of all authorized councils in the Catholic church are as binding as the inspired words of God,46 according to every pope, priest, cardinal, bishop, nun, and monk in that organization.47 The Catholic who denies that is either extremely ignorant or he is a liar who is afraid to publicly state what his church really stands for and what the church really believes. (Observe that iden­tically the same thing can be said of any member of the Communist Party here or abroad.48)

It is during the ten imperial persecutions (81-313 A.D.) that three Bible issues arise which determine the future course of the local assem­blies for the next fifteen hundred years. The persecutions themselves developed a unique situation. They could not help but lead to a super­reverence for spiritual leaders who suffered martyrdom (see note 36). This super-reverence gradually developed into something akin to idolatry, and this meant that any egotist who came along later could

obtain worship and reverence by pretending that he was connected with these men, either by “apostolic succession” or by “laying on of hands.” The Pauline Obsession, therefore, is first manifest in history by the apos­tate popes at Rome pretending that they were kin to the martyrs (like Paul) who suffered and bled and died for resisting a church state. They are no more kin to than the Hapsburgs and the Tudors. Rapidly the bishop or elders (called PRIESTS by Cyprian49) became accepted as minor “gods.”50 With this trend came the second complication: what does one do with a spiritual leader who defects under persecution and denies “the faith”? Or how about a spiritual leader who is immoral or worldly? These three problems led to the defection of several groups of Bible believers from the group of assemblies who called themselves “Catholic”—after the forged Greek “Letter of Ignatius’’ (see above). These groups were called the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists, of whom we shall have much to say later on. Ignatius’ harmless little word “Catholic”—if he ever said it to start with, which he probably didn’t—was converted into the expression “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” by Polycarp before his martyrdom (1 Epistle Smyrna), at least according a “slightly legendary account”51 preserved and pro­moted by Roman Catholics three hundred years later. “Slightly” is hardly the word for it.52

Marcus Aurelius ascended the throne in 161 and reigned until 180 A.D. He was a bloody tyrant and a vicious persecutor of Christians, although he is given credit by some historians as being a “just, kind, and amiable emperor.”53 Notwithstanding, he refused all advice or requests to tolerate Christians; he exiled anyone who preached on judg­ment or hell, since he himself was a Greek Stoic philosopher (Acts 17:18) who didn’t believe he would ever have to stand before God and give account for any of his deeds (see Acts 17:32 and comments in that com­mentary). It would take a volume to describe the bloody acts of this “kind, amiable emperor” and several volumes have been written (Arnold Bodek, E. Renan, Eusebius, et al.). The names of Pothinus (ninety years old), Blandina, Ponticus (fifteen years old), Symphorinus, and “The Thundering Legion” in Hungary are all associated with his reign. Chris­tians were blamed for military disasters, earthquakes, and even floods, and the wrath of the populace fell heaviest on the local assemblies in Lyons (south France) and Vienne (south France). This is very instructive to anyone who is seeking to learn something from history (see chapters 13, 14).

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius (121-180), a group of “holy rollers” appeared called “Montanists,” after their leader. They were

active mainly in southern France (see above) and North Africa. They were decided Pre-millennialists,54 and being contemporaneous with Origen (184-254), who hated Pre-millennialism,55 they were immedi­ately branded as heretics by every follower of the Alexandrian school and by every member of the Alexandrian Cult (see chapter 5).56 Eusebius, the church historian, could certainly not be counted on for too much objective reporting in regard to them, for he, as Origen and Augustine (and Machen, Warfield, and Robertson), was against Pre- millennialism.57 One must never forget that the eminent church historian of this period (Eusebius) was the right-hand man of Constantine at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.): he was one of the greatest apple-polishing, toe-kissing boot-lickers in the history of religious politics (chapter 7). Since he and the emperor were both Post-millennialists in their politi­cal philosophies (the Millennial issue is always a political issue because it deals with governmental authority on earth: Luke 3:1-20; Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Rev. 11:15, John 18:36; etc.), there is not much chance that the Montanists would get a “square count” from Eusebius, let alone a square deal. Pre-millennialism teaches that every human government on the face of the earth will fail and will eventually join Satan to bring in “peace on earth” (Rev. 13). As we have stated in our preface, if the church historian has omitted Satan as a guiding light in ecclesiastical and governmental movements, he has disqualified himself as a Chris­tian historian. No Christian historian could ignore Luke 4:1-8 or 2 Corinthians 4:4 unless he was a Bible rejecting “Christian.”

Commodus takes the throne in 180 and reigns until 192 A.D. He does not actively persecute the Christians, but this is due not to his con­victions but is due largely to the influence of one of his concubines who persuaded him to lay off the churches. However, one Roman senator (Apollonius) was executed during Commodus’ reign for professing Christ. Septimus Severus sits down on Satan’s seat (Luke 4:5-6) in 193 and stays until 211 A.D. Although he himself did not become actively engaged in the persecutions, Severus certainly tolerated them and did nothing to stop them, and it is certain that the law he passed in 202 A.D. against the spread of Christianity had a great deal to do with the bloody persecutions which broke out in Africa about 211 (Alexandria and Mauritania). At this time, Origen’s father (Leonides) was beheaded, and a long list of martyrs appears (Felicitas, a slave; Perpetua. a noble lady; Potamiaena, a virgin; Basilides, her executioner; and scores of Montanists). Clement of Alexandria says, “Many martyrs are daily burned, crucified, and beheaded before your eyes.”58

The next two rulers, Caracalla (211-217) and Heliogabalus _ mipr« Thev however, tolerated

Christianity through indifference to Christian doctrines (see Acts 18:17 and comments in that commentary). Caracalla surrounded himself with philosophers and women lecturers whose strong suit was Oriental mys­ticism.59 As social distinctions were torn down one after another, due to the extension of Roman citizenship into all territories, the Christians were not as “standoffish” as formerly and they began to permeate all classes, whereas for nearly two hundred years their converts had largely been slaves, housemaids, soldiers, sailors, dock workers, servants, and attendants. Caracalla was assassinated by Macrinus,60 who took the crown for fourteen months. Julia Moesa induced the army to kick Macrinus off the throne and installed in his place an effeminate profli­gate named Heliogabalus; this latter gentleman was a sun worshipper in the best Baalite tradition.61 So, he set up a Roman ecumenical movement to integrate Christianity and Judaism with the ancient Roman mystery religions which came from Babylon via Pergamos (see note 13). He brought the standard, required item (a black stone) from Edessa to Rome and was about to have people “kiss the blarney” (Ps. 2:12; Hos. 13:2; Matt. 26:48; and 2 Sam. 15:5) when the Roman army ran him out and put Alexander Severus (222-235) on Satan’s seat.

Severus placed statues of Abraham and Christ into Gabalus’ magpie’s nest, along with Orpheus and Appolonius of Tyana and some other Roman emperors: it was a sort of Roman Riverside Baptist Church with Severus as pastor instead of Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969).62 According to Lampridius, Severus wanted to build a temple for Christ at Rome: since he was unable to accomplish this at that time, the Cath­olics did it for him later. Severus’ mother (Julia Mammaea) studied under Origen, although there is no evidence that she was ever converted or that she ever succeeded in winning her son to Christ.53 Origen, at this time, was busy corrupting Receptus manuscripts in Alexandria, and it is remarkable to note that the first real “break” he got—he was in danger of losing his life under Severus (Septimus, not Alexander) eleven years before this—was under a pagan integrationist who wanted to gather all “faiths” into one ecumenical movement. During Severus’ reign the Alexandrian Cult flourished in Alexandria (see chapter 5), for it was like-minded” with the unsaved Roman emperor (see chapter 5, notes 59, 60). It would appear that at this time the first “church buildings” Were erected, simple “meeting houses” where the Christians could assemble without filling up private homes.64 Maximinus the Thracian (235-238) assassinated Severus.

Maximinus ordered only the death of elders and pastors in Africa, a estine, and Asia Minor, but he had Pontianus and Hippolytus (offi­

cials of the Roman churches) banished to Sardinia. At this time (235-238), Origen ran for his life; while hiding he wrote a book on “Martyrdom. ”65 He may well have been “led by the spirit,” for at this time Origen was able to get away to Caesarea and finish his life work by corrupting the Caesarean family of manuscripts (234 A.D.) as he had corrupted the Receptus in Alexandria before that time. Ambrose’s pagan library accompanied Origen to Caesarea, and Ambrose provided him with all the shorthand experts and stenographers he needed to compose the originals of Sinaiticus (R) and Vaticanus.66 The damn­able results of this perverted scholarship will be found in the extant Latin (corrupted at Alexandria)61 and Syrian (corrupted at Caesarea) manuscripts which depart in certain readings from the Receptus.68 Informed Bible believing scholars (not Afman, Yaeger, Wuest, Custer, Porter, MacRae, Martin, Newman, Anderson, or Olson) believe that the fifty copies of the Alexandrian Bible copied out for Constantine (containing the Old Testament and New Testament Apocrypha) are rep­resented by their sole survivors,69 Sinaiticus and Vaticanus: the two manuscripts used by Bob Jones University for justifying 5,888 “corrections” in the New Testament (1950-1980).

Gordianus (238-244) left the churches undisturbed. Philip the Ara­bian (244-249) took over, and there were no outstanding examples of persecution under his reign.

Now, while all this was going on there was a movement of Bible believing people in the eastern end of the Roman Empire which Philip Schaff dismisses as “radical” fanaticism.70 (Newman makes a few com­ments, but not many.) Here, back in the area where the original New Testament manuscripts were written, there arose a group known as ‘ ‘Messalines ” or ‘ ‘Euchites ’ ’ who immediately began to run afoul of the local assemblies who allowed worldliness in their congregations.71 The term “Euchite” among Greeks was a general name (“a praying people”) for dissenters such as the English word “nonconformist.” The problem seems to be that the Euchites would rebaptize a man on his confession of salvation if he said that he had been baptized BEFORE he was really saved, which, incidentally, was exactly how the Montanists (see above) handled such matters. One of the opponents of the Euchites said: “Instead of being immersed in water they ought to be plunged in hell.”72 Evidently someone had been baptizing people prematurely without any confession of faith, or if a confession, no evidence of con­version. Further, the Euchites must have been a terrible irritation to unconverted church members, living like the devil, who wanted their baptism to pass off as conversion. These early Greek “puritans were

also called Poblicans, Poplicans, and Philopopolitans; sometimes they were simply called by the name of the country where they migrated (Phrygians, Bulgarians, Armenians, etc.).73 In history they are con­nected inseparably with a Bishop of Antioch (not Rome or Alexandria) named Paul ofSamosata. They were called heretics and fanatics because of their unorthodox attitude toward “adoptionism” (see chapter 9), but several things about them are much more outstanding than that.

First of all, they came to be called Paulicians because of the empha­sis they laid on the Pauline epistles.74 instead of the “Hebrew-Christian” epistles. After 325 A.D., they viewed the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church as Satanic, and they refused to tolerate images of any kind in connection with their services. However, the most significant thing about them was their wholesale rejection of the educated scholars at Alexandria and the theological teachings that came from that “most unusual university.” It is most instructive to notice that these Euchites (or Messalines) immigrated to Thrace and Bulgaria and from these roots and from this stock came the Paulicians, Cathari, and Bogomiles of the next six centuries.75 The Cathari were evangelical “Puritans” within the Catholic church, but they agreed with the Bogomiles that the Roman church was the fornicating Whore of Reve­lation 17 and that the pope was the Antichrist (see chapter 14, note 70). The Bogomiles quite frankly declared that the apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene “fathers” were false prophets.16

By the time of Decius Trajan (249 A.D.), the local churches were beginning to branch off into groups that demanded separation and that demanded a congregation of baptized believers only, opposed to con­gregations that would baptize anyone (or anything) and that would go along with the world in “order to be totally involved” in “bringing in the kingdom” and in “establishing a just and lasting peace” to “end man’s inhumanity to,” etc. (See The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1970.)

Decius Trajan was the bloodiest murderer of the lot, almost equal­ling the Roman Catholic popes of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In 250 A.D. he passed an edict to all governors of all provinces ordering all of their subjects to worship the state religion under threat of torture, death, confiscation of goods, or banishment, exactly as the popes in die fifteenth and sixteenth centuries handled it. Decius Trajan was slain in battle with the Goths, but not before killing thousands of Christians and killing scores of local pastors. Among those slain was Cyprian (200-258 A.D.), who, in spite of his zeal for Christ, was probably more responsible for the destruction of New Testament Christianity than any man outside of Origen himself.77 It was Cyprian, the African bishop

of Carthage (next door to the Alexandrian Cult) and a contemporary of Origen, who stated that the church was built on Peter, that Peter was in Rome, and that the Roman church was not Satan’s seat but “THE CHAIR OF PETER.’’78 In the carnal mind of Cyprian’s unregenerate nature, the Roman church was the “fountain of unity and the MOTHER of the Catholic church.”79

Here, in Cyprian, we have a genuine perverter of Biblical truth who loved the Lord enough to die for him. Who could resist the theology of such a “godly” apostate? In such a situation, the duty of a fellow apostate is clear: believe him on the grounds of his moral courage and to with the Bible; accept his opinion as infallible truth on the

grounds that you LIKE it. So, from here on, every communicant in the Roman Catholic church for the next eighteen hundred years is to take Cyprian’s words in these matters to be verbally inspired80 in spite of the fact that Peter was never in Rome (Rom. 15:20-22), was not a Gentile (Gal. 2:15), was married (Matt. 8:14), preached in the east, not the west (1 Peter 5:13), would let no man bow down to him (Acts 10:26), and taught salvation by grace (Acts 15:11) before water bap­tism (Acts 10). But since Cyprian “died for what he believed,” why make a liar out of him? Why not just make a liar out of GOD? (You can be right about the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ and so wrong on the new birth that you can spend eternity with those who didn’t believe in either “birth” or the Deity of Christ.)

So, here (200 A.D.) begins a long, long trail of pagan tradition by “godly Fundamentalists.” Cyprian, as Origen, believed in all of the Catholic fundamentals; he was just a liar when it came to Biblical authority on certain matters. And authority is and has been (and always will be) the issue (Gen. 3:1; Isa. 14:13-14). Cyprian’s martyrdom served to reinforce his Satanic teachings: they entitled him to credulity when he lied. A martyr makes an excellent vessel in which to carry lies (Jack Kennedy; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Che Gueverra; et al.), for it is assumed that “these noble dead died not in vain, for their spirit lives on in,” etc. “The devil has his martyrs among men ” (old Dutch prov­erb). Cyprian’s “spirit” lived on in the Roman Whore on seven hills—the very city which had him slain. (Nor is this anything new; thousands of members of the Iron Guard and the Russian Army who fought to save Russia and Stalin from Hitler and the “Czars” were imprisoned for life when the got back to “Mother Russia.”81)

The seeds of the pagan papacy are not to be found in 325 A D. at Constantine’s council: oh, no, by then the plant is well above ground, the seeds of the papacy are found in the writings of Cyprian and the

New Testament Apocrypha ofSinaiticus (N) in a work called “A Letter from Clement"forged about 98 A.D. Strangely enough, 1 Clement says “God hates those who praise themselves.’’ Quite an “infallible source” for a man who thinks that he has replaced God on earth (see notes 30-32). In this forged letter, dreamed up by an anonymous writer, an ecclesi­astical officer in Rome is undertaking to correct another church eight hundred miles away and give it advice as a superior instructor.82 Furthermore, the author professes to be a Roman bishop in the west trying to straighten out a church in the east: this is highly significant (see chapter 3), for this is where the Pauline epistles were written, except­ing those of course written in jail at Rome, where “Clement” professes to be writing from!

The germs of the papacy can also be found in the writings of Irenaeus (120-192), who calls Rome the “greatest” and oldest church “acknowledged by ALL” and founded by Paul and Peter.83 What is Irenaeus’ scriptural authority for saying that Peter helped found the Roman church? Quite naturally it was none: Peter in Rome is the figment of someone’s conceited imagination. There is nothing in the New Tes­tament that would even suggest that Peter was in Rome, or near it, or had any contact with anyone living in it. To the contrary, the epistle to the Romans is written by Paul (not Peter), and the Christians at Rome (Rom. 16) do not count Peter as a member of any church in Rome, let alone a founder or even a bishop.

As early as 190 A.D. a certain “Pope Victor” (the title is highly fictitious) broke fellowship with the churches of Asia Minor (the loca­tion of the majority of “original autographs”) when he decided that the date of Easter was the big issue among “Fundamentalists.”84 This same issue arose again in England in 597; on both occasions the Cath­olic practice (Roman Catholic by 325) was contrary to the practice of Bible believing Christians, who went by a different Bible than the one the Catholics adopted (see chapter 3).85 By the time of Hippolytus (235 A.D.), the Roman bishop was not only claiming absolute power in his own jurisdiction but was saying (Callistus) that a Roman bishop can never be deposed or compelled to resign no matter what kind of sin he is committing.86 This later became the official Roman Catholic posi­tion and has been for over fifteen centuries.87

Gallus (251-253) continued to persecute Christians. Valerian (253-260) ascended the throne of the Roman sun-god. He began under e guise of being “mild and friendly” toward Christians; however, as the Roman Empire fell apart through excessive taxing, military e ense> lavish amusements, immorality, and inflation (see Gibbon, The

History of the Decline and Fall of the Rornan Empire, 1788), Valerian began to look for a scapegoat. As usual, the Christians were handmade to order. In 257 A.D., Valerian commanded all Christians to conform to the Roman church state or be banished (exactly as Pope Gregory XIII did in 1572, and exactly as it was done under the French Roman Catholic Louis XIV in 1685). He directed that pastors of local churches be separated from their congregations, and he prohibited Christian assem­blies of any kind. In 258 he issued an edict that all bishops and deacons should be put to death and that all Christian converts should be deprived of their property.88 The list of martyrs is too long to enumerate.

Gallienus (260-268) came to the throne; he continued to steer the rambling wreck of the Roman Empire downhill. With the wrath of God on a God-hating, Bible-denying, Christ-rejecting populace of “human­ists,” the empire fell apart piece by piece, blaming its troubles on every­thing from the invasion of the Goths to the Christians offending Venus and Jupiter. The trouble was obvious (Ps. 9:17) if one believes in the authority of God (Prov. 14:34); however, where human authority (scientific or religious) has usurped this authority, the “wicked” don’t even know what they are stumbling over (Prov. 4:19). Gallienus tried a policy of appeasement (having seen that Valerian got nowhere with persecution), and from this time till the time of Diocletian (284) the Christians were allowed some respite. The grew in numbers, wealth, and worldliness, and as they grew in worldliness, more “hell-raising trouble makers” (Bible believing Christians) within their ranks began to “split” again from the main assemblies; worldly Christians (Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19) have always been plagued by Christians whose heav­enly home was more real to them than their earthly “stop-over.” Pagans flowed into the churches and brought their idols with them. The school of Alexandria had now completed most of its dirty work under Philo, Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, and the revised Greek, Syrian, and Latin manuscripts of the Lockman Foundation and Kenneth Taylor (all “bibles”from the Lockman Foundation and all “paraphrases”from Mr. Taylor are translations of the Alexandrian texts) were floating all over North Africa, Palestine, and Asia Minor. The alibi which Pope Damasus and Jerome used later (see chapter 11, notes 45-58) for drum­ming up a “standard” version was the confusion that these texts caused.

In 281 A.D. a group known as the Novations arose. They insisted upon adult immersion of believers only and a pure discipline in the local church; they rejected anyone’s baptism who had been baptized by an immoral bishop (Callistus, for example) or anyone who had defecte under persecution by denying the Lord Jesus Christ. Since Philip Scha

fails to notice these Novatians are the “Cathari” of a later date (1000-1200), we shall make a special note of them.89

The last Roman Emperor before the demoniac Constantine was a man named Diocletian (284-313). He began his reign with mild threats against a group of “Manichaeans” (of whom we shall speak later) and then went from this to a decree compelling all of his soldiers to sacrifice to the state gods. This was followed by a decree in 303 A.D. to throw all pastors of local churches into prisons, to level all church buildings to the ground, and to burn up every copy of the scriptures that could be found. Those who turned over their Bibles to this Fascist monster were called “traitors,” and this became the cause of another split in the local churches, producing what historians call the "Donatists. ”90 We will hear from them again, for they are linked in church history with the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Waldenses; the outstanding thing about the Donatists was that they rejected infant baptism in every form at a later time when the Roman Catholic church accepted it. They would baptize no one but adult believers, although, at the time they practiced this, every Roman Catholic congregation in Africa, Asia, and Europe was dunking (or sprinkling) babies and even waving wet branches over the heads of armed troops.91

By the time of Diocletian there were Christian martyrs suffering for their beliefs in Spain (St. Vincentius, Eulalia) and Great Britain (St. Alban). Not content with his vicious decree of 303 A.D., Diocletian declared in 308 that those who sacrificed to the state gods had to eat of the offerings after they were offered or killed (see 1 Cor. 10:25-33), and, further, that all of the goods in the marketplace of every city had to be sprinkled with the “holy wine” from off the pagan altar; this meant that if a Christian ate anything he had to “drink” the sacramental “holy Eucharist” that was poured on the item. Conservative estimates would indicate that around ten thousand Christians were killed and twenty thou­sand tortured, imprisoned, or exiled during the reign of Diocletian. Although this debacle could in no wise match the slaughters under the Roman Catholic Popes Gregory XIII or Paul III (see chapter 14), Diocletian at least “had his hat in the ring.” According to Eusebius there were bonfires made of the holy scriptures, and undoubtedly these bonfires finished off thousands of copies that were only two or three writings removed from the original manuscripts. No one has yet started a bonfire to bum the Alexandrian, Jesuit text of Roman Catholicism: to the contrary, when a young Baptist preacher in 1979 (Gary Ginsky;

aneohe, Hawaii) applied to the IRS and the Treasury Department of e United States to gain tax-exempt status, he was denied it by the dis­

trict director of the Internal Revenue (W.A. Couvelt) until he explained to the Federal government why he didn’t accept the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582, which is the Alexandrian text of the Cult (see chapter 5). This correspondence (1979) marked an epoch in the history of the decline and fall of the United States Constitution, for it implied, without stating it (yet!), that churches in America could not be tax-exempt unless they subscribed to the official Jesuit Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.92

There are no Roman Catholic “bibles” from Origen’s manuscripts burned by ANY ruler in church history, unless the Saracens touched off a few of them when they burned down the library at Alexandria; Origen’s manuscripts are “safe” because the Holy Spirit never bears witness to them. We have no trouble in finding these “beautifully bound,” handsome, vellum codices from the fourth century (one in the Vatican and one in a wastebasket in a monastery) that are in “excellent condition”—not even after twenty years, let alone two hundred years. The Bibles found in anyone’s house in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, or twentieth centuries that are in “excellent con­dition” are the Bibles that have been sitting on the shelf: any fool knows that.

The rest of this chapter on “The Fiery Furnace” will have to take care of itself. We have dealt here briefly with the tunnel of fire through which the early church passed. The next man to take the throne is “Constantine the Great,” of notorious memory, who succeeded in stopping the local churches where fire, thumbscrews, pincers, pulleys, racks, whips, nails, swords, and jails had not. Constantine almost succeeded in wiping Biblical Christianity off the face of the earth for twelve hundred years, and with the exception of a few radical “fringe” groups and minorities made up of internal “dissenters,” the face of the church as a whole was so drastically altered that it became accepted as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice instead of the Bible. The Bible was abandoned as the final authority, and in the future was only used as a textbook for references to be drawn out in times of disunity in order to keep the church hierarchy in a position of con­trol over the world system.

With the advent of Constantine (313 A.D.), the Biblical authority of the local church disappears from the major works of the major historians. The separation of church and state disappears altogether, and the purpose for which the church was created vanishes into thin air. Historians, from 313 A.D. on, write ANTI-CHURCH HISTORY. Instead of “food and raiment” (1 Tim. 6:8), the members find them selves in gold, silver, and diamonds; instead of being “the offscourmg

of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13), they find themselves worshipping in million dollar cathedrals; instead of being outside the camp “bearing his reproach,” (Heb. 13:13) they are found inside the camp consorting with the ones who whipped Him, nailed Him, and buried Him (Matt. 27:29-30, 35, 66). We call this the Pergamos period of church history (Rev. 2:12), since “Pergamos” indicates a marriage between the world and the church. In Biblical terms, it is a married woman who is “one” with her husband (Eph. 5:24) and then suddenly steps out on him and offers herself to the highest bidder (Ezek. 16:30-33; 23:30-38) for favors. In short, a WHORE (Rev. 17:1-9). The Greek expression for a man’s action under these circumstances is found in Matthew 19:7—he is to give his “spouse” an APOSTATE BIBLE. This is the reading of Mat­thew 19:7 in any Greek text (|3iPA.iov dnooTaoiou, biblion apostasiou).

So, as every Greek scholar in the Alexandrian Cult devotes his time (1880-1990) to getting rid of the God-breathed words of divine authority, the very Greek text being muddled with has already pronounced its judgment on him and his fellow revisers. They can produce nothing but an apostate Bible no matter what “eclectic” texts they reconstruct. An apostate “book” is the inheritance of a church that God cannot stand to live with. The apostate Bible given to Constantine (fifty copies) came from the pens of Pamphilus and Eusebius,94 and since Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, who would dare to question a translation or a version put out by such a “good, godly, dedicated man” whose “unquestioned loy­alty” to the “verbal, plenary, inspired originals” was confirmed by his faithfulness unto death! Hmmm?

The fiery trial ends with the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.), but not before thousands of Bible believing people had paid for their faith with their lives. The blood of the martyrs ran down the gutters of small villages; it soaked the fifty yard line of the Coliseum; it dripped out of windows and doorways and “cried for vengeance” (Heb. 11:4; Num. 35:33). The Lord answered, and in less than a hundred and fifty years after the church sold its blood-bought inheritance to a Roman sun wor­shipper, the Lord sent in the heathen (Jer. 52) to wipe out the Whore °n seven hills (Rev. 17).

Constantine (272-337) and the Council of Nicaea belong to another chapter, but before we can properly evaluate Constantine’s “conver- S1°n and his “religious convictions,” it will be necessary to retrace 0Ur stePs from 313 A.D. back to 100 A.D. again and see what went on down in Egypt during the ten imperial persecutions. Here in Egypt ? world), under the noses of imperial disfavor, there

veloped the most Satanic force in the history of Christendom, and

it survived Constantine, the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic wars, the French and Spanish dominions, the British Empire, the Third Reich, and Soviet Russia without the least bit of trouble. As everything Satanic in the Christian realm, it professed “orthodoxy,” held to the highest moral standards (the Pharisees had the highest moral standards of any religious group in the first century), used and quoted “the Bible,” and professed to be engaged in “explain­ing the scriptures”95 and making them “easier to understand.” To do this, quite naturally, both “scientific methods of exegesis” and “textual criticism”96 of a philosophical nature (1 Tim. 6:20; Col. 2:8) had to be resorted to. Naturally also, those involved in such a movement had to be very intelligent (Ezek. 28:12) and highly educated (1 Cor. 1-2; Isa. 28-29; Luke 10:21). Further, none could enlist for such a work unless he took for granted at the start that his own native wisdom and intelligence (plus his superior education) made him capable of sitting in judgment on the authority of God—the Bible—which most of them professed to believe. This Cult arose from the Gnostic hotbed of Egypt (Alexandria) in the best tradition of the sun worshipping Egyptians, brain worshipping Greeks, and sign observing Jews.97 It arose to suggest to the body of Christ and the later church “Fathers” the most insidious and damnable doctrines the local assemblies ever had to combat: the

teachings that babies needed to be regenerated by sprinkling water, that this sprinkling took away “original sin,”98 and that a New Testament bishop was a priest who belonged to an organization destined to rule the political, economic, and social world before Jesus Christ came back. All four of these non-Biblical, non-Christian teachings originated in the school at Alexandria.

With these teachings came the schisms of the Donatists, the Novatians, the Paulicians, the Bogomiles, Henricians, Petrobrusians, Waldenses, Anabaptists, Albigenses, Vaudois, Paterines, and many Cathari." With these teachings came the development of a church membership of over 18,000,000 people who didn’t know where they were going when they died, and if ninety percent of them were count­ing on baptismal regeneration to get them to heaven—and according to Catholic teaching, one hundred percent of them would have had to count on it—meant that there were 17,000,000 “Christians” in Europe before 1000 A.D. who were just as lost and as dead in trespasses and sin as the worst heathen who ever offered a human sacrifice. By L there were over 18,000,000 people in Europe who (if they really believ what the “church” taught them) belonged to a church composed o unregenerate members: the Bible calls them “children of wrath an

“children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:1-4). The men responsible for this remarkable “church” were Plato (427-347 B.C.), an unsaved Greek philosopher); Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Bible rejecting Jew; Pantaenus (145-200), a heathen philosopher; Clement of Alexandria (150-215); and Adamantius Origen (185-254). We call this elite fraternity “THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT,” and from them came the foundation beliefs for the Jehovah’s Witnesses,100 the Roman Catholics,101 the Church of Christ,102 Unitarians,103 and religious Liberals.104 In addition to this, their textual criticism and revisions of the Bible so influenced Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine that those worthy gentlemen set up the text for the New American Standard Version (1960), the New International Version (1978), the Revised Standard Version (1952), and the “Living” Bible (1966) more than fifteen hundred years before those pious coun­terfeits were recommended by Bob Jones University, Liberty Baptist Seminary, Pensacola Christian College, Wheaton College, the National Council of Christian Churches (1900-1980), and the Treasury Depart­ment of the IRS (see above, note 92).

The Alexandrian Cult was involved in the first attempts at Christian education and the first attempt to set up a school of “higher learning” in order to make Bible believing Christianity “respectable. ”105 Its foun­dation was Genesis 3:1, its guiding principle was John 5:44, and its curriculum depended upon pretending that Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 6:20 were not in the New Testament. It managed to maintain its integrity for fifteen centuries by playing “middle man” between two conflict­ing, “final” authorities. Since this is exactly how the Roman Catholic church has maintained its integrity for the same length of time,106 we may honestly suspect that the roots of the Catholic church are in North Africa (Cyprian from Carthage, Augustine from Hippo, and Origen from Alexandria) and that the principles of the Cult were adopted and practiced by the hierarchy for fifteen hundred years. With the modem emphasis on “back to the jungle” and “roots in Africa” (1976-1980), who could resist the temptation to prophesy that shortly the pope will have to be a BLACK"” man (see Mark of the Beast, 1959, 1970)?


Africa’s Most Unusual University

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”

Romans 1:22

At this point in our history we have observed three stages of the eternal, spiritual “cycle” rolling by us. First, there appeared the pagan setting of the first local New Testament church. In one of the most worldly setups the world has ever known (the Roman Empire), the New Testament Christians enter the stage (Acts 1-28) to collide with the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). The great, sprawling Roman Empire sported rulers who murdered their mothers, brother, sisters, nephews, and uncles,1 sacrificed to Satan under such names as Jupiter, Zeus, and Apollos, and prayed to the universal Mother Whore (Rev. 17; Zech. 5:7, 8) under such names as Venus, Diana, Astarte, Artemis, etc. The Greek world which preceded this (500-149 B.C.) was about the same moral caliber and about the same spiritual tone.

As historians approach the birth of Christ in their writings (Williston Walker, F.F. Bruce, Cairns, Durant, Baker, Latourette, Wegener, and many others), they summon all the powers of positive thinking of which they are capable (see chapter 4, note 15), trying to convince someone that they are approaching a “mountain peak of truth” gradually. This is done because the historian has hindsight and knows what happened following the Greek age: a new dispensation was ushered in. However, these attempts to smooth over the ghastly apostasy between Xerxes and Caesar is only “more of the same,” if one has read Charles Darwin ®nd the philosophy of the Fabian Society (England, nineteenth century).

vain the historians try to prepare their readers for the coming of the essiah by pointing out everything they can get their hands on of a Po-ntive nature to prove that in the dispensation preceding John the Bap- „ *** things work together for good” to the unsaved masses in

n s world system. Gradual Divine intervention into an unholy,

ungodly cauldron filled with mass ignorance, superstition, and cruelty is not the “format” for a good “church history” because the church’s Book—supposedly the Book by which she lives and has her being— clearly states on at least seven occasions (Gen. 3; 6; 11; Exod. 15; Judg. 24; Jer. 52; Matt. 24) that every period in history in the story of mankind ends in APOSTASY. There are no gradual “preparations,” accidently or on purpose, coming off for any subsequent dispensations that are blessed of God, or are God-directed; they are God-permitted (see Acts 20:23 and comments in that commentary).

The “preparation” for the garden of Eden was not the “providen­tial” work of the sons of God in the vicinity, nor the creation of the animals: it was the watery destruction of a group of Satanically led and Satanically inspired “gods” (Ps. 82; Job 38; 2 Peter 3:3-8; and Gen. 1:2-3). The “preparation” after the Fall was not due to “the infinite wisdom of God” in His goodness directing man “to prepare for a second deluge” (Gen. 6-7): it was due to an earthly people who loved this life and had no use for the next one, since they and their ancestors were city dwellers (Gen. 4:16-17), murderers (Gen. 4:23), and polygamists (Gen. 4:23) who used the fine arts for sensual purposes (Job 21:12-15: see Gen. 4:20-22 and comments in that commentary). The “high point” of civilization “preparing the way” for Abram (Gen. 11) was the tower of Babel and God’s judgment on the nations. The high point of civili­zation “preparing” the way for the Second Coming of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords has nothing to do with the work of the HEW, UNESCO, the CFR, or the United Nations (Zeph. 3:8), for they are to be gathered into bundles (Matt. 13:40) and BURNED (Matt. 13; Mai. 4:1-3).

With these demonstrable truths set forth in the clearest language, in the Book, the secular historians (Will Durant, H.G. Wells, et al.) pretend that they are of such little consequence they do not have to be consulted as a guideline when writing history. The church historians suddenly decide that the “preparation” for the first coming of the Mes­siah was so God-directed it was little less than perfect. The horrendous lie put forth in this interpretation is not manifest to a student until he suddenly realizes its implications: it implies that the preparation for the Second Advent will be nothing short of perfect. The preparation for the Second Advent is the worldwide dominion of Satan, incarnate in the flesh, as head of the UN, in a Roman capacity (Rev. 13-17). „

The truth (instead of historical novels) is that the “preparation for the first coming of the Messiah was a unified kingdom (Rome) that God determined to destroy as far back as 890 B.C. (Dan. 2), f°ur

hundred years of silence from God, without a single piece of inspired literature given to mankind by Him (Mai. 4); four hundred years of Greek philosophers rewriting Solomon, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes from the standpoint of amoral evolutionists and pretending that they had created a body of wisdom which was actually in print more than five hundred years before any of them were born (see preface to The Bible Believer’s Commentary on Proverbs).

Jesus Christ appears in the midst of a captive nation occupied by a foreign military power, and He appears in the midst of a backslidden people torn apart by sectarian and religious strife (Herodians, Sadducees, Pharisees, Ebionites, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) under the leadership of blind guides (Matt. 23:16) who have no more “final” authority to lead anyone by (Mark 7:6-13) than the faculty members at Tennessee Temple, Harvard, Pensacola Christian College, Yale, Liberty Baptist College, or Columbia. Dual authorities that conflict (Mark 7:8) leave the one

who recommends them as the final authority.2 Any fool can figure such a proposition out without taxing his mentality .

When Jesus Christ appears, He comes into a degenerate nation led

by spiritual apostates under bondage to a pagan church state system.3 The only good thing we can say about such a “preparation” is that one spoken language (Greek) made communications a little easier and the

vast Roman system of outposts, roads, and trading routes made trans­portation a little easier. Improvements in communications and

transportation are the marks of all material and humanistic progress and have little or no effect on improving the moral character of man in the aggregate or of any individual man. In the nineteenth century,

unsaved scientists, scholars, teachers, and preachers were so impressed by these material improvements,4 in the material world system (2 Cor. 4:4), they thought that either “the kingdom was a’coming” (see Vol. II: Talmage, Beecher, Tennyson, Emerson, and the Deists) or else that

man had evolved to the place of a god and henceforth could control his own destiny, without God (see Vol. II: Haeckel, Huxley, Marx, Einstein, Heidegger, Sartre, etc.). Aside from the standard materialis­tic improvements—transportation (Telstar, Star Wars, rocket to the

moon, DC-lO’s, etc.) and communications (telegraph, telephone, telewoman, television, radio, etc.) which have marked the departure of man from God in every age (Deut. 32:8, 17; Gen. 11:1-8; Isa. 5:8, )—the only “preparation” for the first advent was a spiritual and m°ral blackout that would stand your hair on end. It is true that one oan emphasize cute, little “high points” in the period if one searches Or t*lem whh a microscope, and little neat and nifty details may be

gleaned by the positive thinkers5 in an effort to convince the student that a lie is the truth;6 however, the treatment afforded to the Messiah (Isa. 53) and His forerunner (Mark 6:27) and His church (Acts 12) and His disciples (Acts 16; 27) pretty well states what went on in the four hundred years of “preparation” preceding His Advent; the bare facts of the New Testament would identify the positive thinkers as LUNA­TICS. It was “progress” (400-4 B.C.) in the sense of a United Nations Assembly (1945-1989) and its “war prevention program” .forty-eight wars in less than fifty years.7

This brings us to our starting point: New Testament Christianity begins in a pagan system during a nighttime of spirituality and Biblical truth. Our cycle (Paganism, Evangelism, Teaching, Culture, Apostasy, Paganism: see the preface) is in operation. The Evangelism obviously takes place in the Acts period, and this is so apparent (Acts 2; 3; 7; 8; 9) that it needs no comment (Acts 13; 14; 15; 16; 17). The “Teach­ing” is not only mentioned in the original apostolic commission (Matt. 28:19-20), but it shows up in evidence in Acts 13:1-3 at Antioch (not Alexandria) and again in Acts 18:11 at Corinth (not Rome). The only “eloquent orator” from Alexandria is handicapped by his partial knowl­edge of the truth (Acts 18:25) and a Christian man and his wife (Aquila and Priscilla) have to bring him “up to date” (Acts 18:26). Following the preaching and teaching ministry of Christians (33 A.D. to 200 A.D.), in the midst of the most depressing and discouraging circumstances (see chapter 3), the inevitable shows up: CULTURE. From about 200 or 222 (the reign of Alexander Severus) to about 250 (the reign of Trajan), the local assemblies enjoyed comparative ease—“ease” for a Chris­tian (Amos 6:1) means “look out” (2 Sam. 11:1). At this time, Origen’s school in Alexandria, Egypt, gets into full swing (at this time Origen would have been about 27-30 years old). No one could misread Origen’s approach to the Bible. He was the first “Bible believer” in a long string to come who believed Christianity would (by continual growth andpro- gressive evolution) come to rule the world through “priests."8 This heresy is called Post-millennialism and comes from pretending that the Harlot church of Matthew 13:33 and Revelation 17 is the body of Christ.9 In view of this doctrinal “conviction,” Origen’s approach was that Chris­tianity had to be made respectable so that the unsaved rulers of the world system would court it as a superior religion (and eventually yoke up with it to help it rule the world). Origen’s basic idea was to compro­mise with Satan (Luke 4:6) in order to gain ground. “Having men s

• persons in admiration because of advantage” (Jude 16), Origen decided that “pastor” was a poor term for an ordained elder (1 T,rn- I

B B B B B !

5:17): he really should be called a “PRIEST.”10 This matched Rome’s system perfectly (pagan or papal) before and after the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.). Adamantius Origen also decided that since Genesis 1-3 was not literal history, that it must be “Urgeschichte”" (supra-history), and since no one could believe that Luke 4:5 took place literally, it was perfectly all right to remove half of Luke 4:4 from the Received Greek text.122 This he did (see the ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, IV, NIV, etc.). Origen also had some very peculiar ideas about infant sprinkling which we will talk about at a later time. But the most outstanding things about Origen’s “fundamentalism” were his beliefs in transmigration of souls (while believing in the Virgin Birth), no literal hell (while believing in the Crucifixion), no physical resurrection (while believing in Christ’s Resurrection), the universal salvation of all men after a time in purgatory13 (while believing in “inspired originals”), and the fact that if one receives the mystical “KISS OF PEACE,”14 denies himself fleshy pleasures, and “holds the end of his life,” he will earn eternal life by good WORKS.15 Of course, Origen believed that God wrote the Bible, that Christ was the virgin-born Son of God, that He died on the cross, and that He was buried and rose again and some day will come in judgment.

All Fundamentalists believe that.

What Origen didn’t believe was what God said in His BOOK.15 Now, Adamantius Origen was not the first “godly man” to correct God Almighty. Balaam—a Spirit-filled, truth-telling, Christ-magnifying prophet (Num. 23; 24)—did it by “updating” the “conflate text” (Num. 22:12-13); that is, he threw out two-thirds of the original manuscripts. Jehudi did Balaam up “brown” (Jer. 36). Jehudi took away all of the original. If Jehudi had been able to sit down with Westcott and Hort

(1881-1884) or the faculty at Bob Jones University (1945-1980), he would have replaced the Authorized Version with his own “bible”—

an Alexandrian Bible from Adamantius Origen.17

Unbelief in the words of God is so universal, so standard, so habit­ual, and so intense in any age that it is found documented throughout the written word of God from cover to cover. The first attack made

on the words of God were made in Genesis 3:1; so this verse may be used as a starting point for the founding of what might be called the fa Hath God Said? Society” or "The Scholars Union. ” Some of members of this union do not believe a blood atonement is better n works (Gen. 4); many of them didn’t believe a flood was coming en they had been told that it was (2 Peter 3; Gen. 6); some of them don t believe the Lord is coming “with ten thousands of his saints”

(Jude 14). Many of them didn’t believe that lightning would get their cattle (Exod. 9:20-21); they didn’t believe God’s laws were to be taken seriously (Lev. 24:11); they didn’t believe the Lord could provide food when people were starving (2 Kings 7:1-2); they don’t believe God can feed anyone in the wilderness (Ps. 78:19); they don’t believe God will supply all their need through His riches in glory by Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:19); they don’t believe Israel is going to be restored (Rom. 11:25-27); they don’t believe a man will go to Hell if he lives a good life (Matt. 7:20-24); they don’t believe Jesus Christ will sit down on a literal throne of David at Jerusalem (Matt. 25:31); they don’t believe God can pre­serve a Book He wrote Himself (Ps. 12:6-7); they don’t believe that the Roman Catholic church is the bride of Satan (Rev. 17:1-6; Judg. 18:19-28; 1 Kings 18:22-28; Judg. 2:13; Jer. 44:17, 19; Matt. 23:9; John 17:11; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 10:8-12; and Matt. 13:33). They believe what they want to believe. If they don’t like the peeling, they take it off the orange, eat the inside, and spit out the seeds and then insist that oranges don’t have seeds or skins: they do. These smart alecks who would accuse a Bible believer of “Bibliolatry”’ in a minute have so many things they do NOT believe that to call them “believers”—on the basis of a profession to have believed in Romans 10:9-10—is pitiful. They believe five to twenty things taken out of a Book they don’t like and don’t believe, and which they would not hesitate at any time to correct (and in every place) where they objected to it.18

The “Yea Hath God Said? Society’’ is as old as mankind.

It is as old as sin, death, and hell.

When Adamantius Origen appears on the scene nearly 4,184 years after his father (John 8:40-44) appeared (Gen. 3:1), he leads the church into the fourth stage of its historical cycle: CULTURE. “Culture” means simply ‘the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties, espe­cially by EDUCATION” (Webster’s Dictionary). Beyond that, it means “enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual training or “acquaintance with the broader aspects of SCIENCE” (1 Tim. 6:20). The etymology of the word has other sidelights which are much more revealing; for example, a “culture” in biology is “growing something in a prepared medium. ” However, when dealing with the Christian edu­cation going on at Africa’s Most Unusual University, we can find in the term “Culture” a much more basic and primitive root. You see, the root of the word “CULTURE” is “CULT.” Culture produces CULTS. The Guyana cult of Jim Jones (1978) believed in Marxist PHI­LOSOPHY (Col. 2:8), race-mixing, equal rights, gay liberation, and “social justice.” No one in Jim Jones’ cult took the Bible serious y

where it spoke against anything they wanted to believe: they wanted to believe that oranges and bananas didn’t have skins; they do.

So, he we must examine the greatest leavening factor in the his­tory of the Christian church, remembering, of course, that those who deposited this leaven into the body of “whole meal” (Matt. 13) had to cover their tracks (see Rom. 1:18, 21, 25 in the X5Kand New ASV)

by piously pretending that the “leaven” was not false doctrine (Gal. 5:9,; Matt. 16:12) but the good news of salvation, by the Grace of God (Gal. 1:8-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-5). No operation carried out in the history of the Christian church, including the massacre on St. Bartholomew’s Day or the bloody murders of Ante Pavelic,” could do more damage. It was Darwin, fifteen hundred years ahead of his time: Darwin with a Bible in one hand and a diploma in the other. It is the teaching that regardless of one’s theology where it deals with depravity (Matt. 7:11; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 3:10-18; Gen. 6:5), one has the right to assume that

the “truth” (and especially the truth of God) is “marching on” (The Battle Hymn of the Republic),20 after being told that “TRUTH is fallen in the street” (Isa. 59:14) and that the characteristic of Origen’s time will be a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9) who claim to be “Jews” (Rom. 2:29), followed by religious fornication and sacrifice to idols (Rev. 2:14). With the New Testament on the table in front of him (Rom. 16:18; 1 Tim. 4:1-6), Origen simply assumes the positive view that the Christians would conquer the world: without a shred of evidence for thinking that. In Origen’s mental fog he probably thought that his “radiant testimony,” “vast learning,” “brilliant intellect,” and “unquestioned loyalty to the word of God”21 would influence those in high places: to cite a particular case, Julia Mammaea, the mother of the Roman emperor Alexander Severus. That is, for the sake of the ministry or “to win lost souls” (that is the modern way of stating Origen’s compromise), Origen simply declared that the word of God is not to be taken literally on certain points, and that he was smart enough to determine where those points were.22 Origen (as Jerome and Augustine) knew perfectly well how “the truth” was to fare at the end °f his dispensation (1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 3:1-6) because the Book he as teaching, reading, revising, preaching, and writing about told him. 'lere isn’t any Christian reading this page who doesn’t know how his own age ends. Origen just taught that God Almighty didn’t know what .e as doing when He inspired those words.23 Whether Origen or . u8Ustine justified themselves by saying that they were not “in the orig- F. is the modem method) or that they were not to be taken “lit- F" y (all teachers at the school of Alexandria were “allegorizers”24),

the fact remains that Origen—“the greatest scholar of his time,” “the greatest Christian philosopher the world ever knew,” a genius of “eru­dite talent” and vivid imagination “whose vast labors” in the field of exegesis entitle him to the name of the “father of textual critic­ism”25—accepted Old and New Testament Apocrypha as inspired (Barnabas, Judith, Tobit, etc.26), taught baptismal regeneration, and taught that the whole pagan world would be converted to Christ since Jesus Christ was reigning over the world now through His “priests.”

The response of the modern, apostate Fundamentalist to all of this barrage of God-dishonoring claptrap is, “Well, back in those days they didn’t have the light we have now, and in those dark days of ignorance and superstition [see the evolutionary complex already in operation!] we can be thankful that he was as orthodox as he was; let charity con­trol our judgments and let us not slander the sacred memory of those who did their best by the light they had,” etc. This is the position of the modern religious Liberal (1980) exactly. This is the position taken now (1980) by Christian educators when called to face the monstrous perversions of the word of God carried out by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Nestle, Alford, Metzger, Hort, Robertson, Green, Schaff, Olson, Weniger, the Lockman Foundation, Anderson, Warfield, Yaeger, and Afman. Origen was eighteen centuries closer to the original auto­graphs than any man reading this page, and he himself quotes the New Testament more than 17,900 times: what “light” do you have that he didn’t have? Origen had access to a battery of stenographers and short­hand experts which you do not;27 he had martyrs dying before him and in front of him, yearly, which you do not; Origen knew that the “fathers” who preceded him (Irenaeus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr) were all Pre-millennial,28 and he knew that infant baptism was found nowhere in the New Testament from cover to cover because he spent his lifetime correcting the New Testament and proba­bly the Old Testament as well.29 What light do any of you have that he didn't have when it comes to SOUND DOCTRINE? None: if you would cover up the sins of Origen, you would cover up your own.

Ignorance is no excuse for making a liar out of God (Rom. 3:4).

Now, it would be unjust and improper to heap all of this calumny on one man. Surely Origen wasn’t an “original thinker” (Eccl. 1:10) any more than any Bible-rejecting relativist (see Vol. II: Einstein, Mach, Jung, Marx, Engels, Freud, et al.). If we are to be factual and objec­tive in our analysis of Africa’s Most Unusual University, we will have to do some rooting and grubbing into the past. This is all the more necessary in view of the fact that when Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

heads up the university, it is passed off automatically as a “CHRIS­TIAN college,” and yet neither Schaff, Hefele, LaGarde, Latourette, Mosheim, Migne, Dollinger, Bettenson, Newman, Fisher, Froom, nor Eusebius can tell us when it became a Christian institution; it was any­thing but a Christian institution when Philo and Pantaenus (145-200) were fooling with it.30

In 1520 a map was drawn by someone; it is called the “Peri Reis” map. It is remarkable in that it seems to be an aerial view, and it shows topographical features on the continent of Antarctica which were not known in 1950. But the most startling thing about the Peri Reis map is the fact that when cartographers projected it onto a grid (using the reference points on the map), it appeared to be identical with a USAF “map of the world” on an equidistant projection based on Cairo, Egypt.31 Cairo, in the land of the Sphinx (see Mark of the Beast, 1959, 1970) is not eighty miles from Alexandria.

The history of this sinkhole of intellectual depravity is well known. Like New York, London, Rome, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other Cainite centers (Gen. 4:16-17), it was a “great city” in the ancient world. Founded by an epileptic demoniac, Alexander the Great (332 B.C.), it had the most famous library in the empire. It was at this spot that Ptolemy Philadelphus was supposed to have sent for seventy-two Jews (and only got seventy of them) to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. Preserving this fairy tale legend through twenty centuries of church history, the Alexandrian Cult (who manufactured the legend to start with32) humbly took the credit for inspiring BOTH Testaments. Alexandrian theology taught that the “Septuagint” was verbally inspired.33 But the “sacred” associations with Alexandria do not end here; they could not, for, after all, the city is in “the land of HAM” (Ps. 105:27; 106:22) and heir to a history (Gen. 50:26 and comments in that commentary) that places it next to Rome as the creator and sustainer of lies (Rev. 22:15). God would not let the bones of Joseph remain in this land (Exod. 13:19); Jacob would not allow himself to be buried there (Gen. 49:29); the Jews were warned over and over not to go there (Jer. 42; 43); and God would not even tolerate HORSES brought up from there (Deut. 17:16); God not only called the nation °f Israel out of the land of Ham (Exod. 15), but His own Son as well (Matt. 2:15).

. Surely such Biblical associations are enough to warn the most reck- . s Christian that Alexandria is not to be approached “neutrally” just ■ scholars and historians will think that you are tolerant or intelligent £ a f*ne chap.” You are not intelligent just because you refuse to

accept the Bible’s judgment on a matter. Intelligence got the Greek schol­ars nowhere (1 Cor. 1:23; 3:19), and tolerance finished off a whole navy (1 Kings 22:48) and cost a king his life (1 Kings 20:42). Intoler­ance was the redeeming grace of the Ephesian New Testament local assembly (Rev. 2:2); the Lord approved of them because they couldn’t tolerate certain “Christians.”

Philo (20 B.C.- 50 A.D.) was supposedly the Rabbi of the “Great Synagogue” in Alexandria.34 As a renegade Jew, under the condem­nation of God Almighty (Jer. 42; 43; and Deut. 28:68), he did not believe the Old Testament, and he did not attend the mandatory feasts (Deut. 16:16) or sacrifices (Lev. 17). He followed Plato (427-347 B.C.) in his thinking and his writings,35 and he allegorized everything in the Bible he didn’t like. If we are harsh in our judgments of him, then we must remember that we are examining the Alexandrian Cult in the advanced light of the Book that they perverted: the Holy Bible. By God’s stand­ards (1 Cor. 1; 2; Isa. 28; 29; Prov. 30:6; and Luke 10:21), Philo was a God-defying fool (Luke 24:25). But “fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” so no one should be surprised to find more than one fool in “cahoots” with Philo.

The Satanic philosophical system (Col. 2:8) which later gave the “church fathers” so much trouble (100-300 A.D.) was called “Gnos­ticism,” which simply means “smart aleck.” A “Gnostic” was a “knower,” in distinction from an “agnostic,” who would be a non­knower (Latin: ignoramus). Since this was Eve’s original problem (Gen. 3:1-3), and since every mystery religion in Rome, Greece, Babylon, and Syria had a place for a “super-elect,”36 and since these super-elect were always characterized by advanced knowledge and higher light of a “higher nature than you poor, common peons,” etc.,37 it was inevitable that the Gnostic system, following Platonic guidelines, should eventu­ate into “higher education”: in this case, higher “Christian” education.3’

Gnosticism, according to Schaff,39 was the grandest and most comprehensive form of “speculative religious syncretisrti” known to history: it was a chemical mixture of Oriental mysticism, Greek phi­losophy, Alexandrian and Philonic Judaism, and Christianity combined. That is, if it had a book to go by, it would have to have adopted a New ASV which caters to mysticism (Matt. 12:6), scholarship (Rom. 1:18, 21, 25), infidelity (Luke 2:33), modernism (Luke 23:42), salvation by works (Gal. 5:4), salvation by grace (Eph. 2:8), orthodox Christianity (John 3:16), and Catholic Christianity (Col. 1:14), plus asceticism (Co . 2:23). (All references are to be read as found in the New ASV or the old ASK or the NIV, exactly as they are recommended in 1980 by Chris

Origen (184-254) lays down his formal theory of Bible interpreta­tion according to Philo.40 There is no evidence that that Philo was a saved man in an Old Testament sense (David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, et al.) or a New Testament sense (John, Peter, Paul, et al.). Origen’s teacher and instructor, Clement of Alexandria (150-215), even accepted the writings of Plato as inspired because they “contained the truth.” Any reader of Plato’s Republic will be in a good position to say how “inspired” the rascal was after comparing Plato’s work with the books of Proverbs and Isaiah, both of which were written more than three hundred years before Plato was born.

The all-star team for Alexandria, chronologically speaking, would look like this: Plato (427-347 B.C.), Philo (20 B.C.- 50 A.D.), Pan- taenus (145-200 A.D.), Clement (150-215 A.D.), and finally Origen (184-254 A.D.). These are the founding fathers of the Alexandrian Cult. They are all educators and teachers; they are all “scientific” and “phil­osophic,”41 and any one of them would correct the word of God, in the originals or otherwise, as quickly as they would take a breath of air. If anyone doubts that their progeny is not still active and that their descendants are not “alive and well,” let him read Acts 17:22 in the NIV or NASV, where the reading of Clement of Alexandria (57 A.D.) stands in 1960 and 1978 (see Acts 17:22 and comments in that com­mentary), or let him read John 1:18 in the New ASV, where the vulgar and blasphemous manuscripts from Origen have condoned two “Gods,” one “declaring” the other. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not begin with Pastor Russell or Judge Rutherford (see Vol. II): they are well on their way a hundred years before the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.).

The Alexandrian Cult, founded and sustained by Gnostic Greek philosophers, comes to invade every branch of science, philosophy, reli­gion, and education in the western world for twenty centuries, and its members range from out-and-out atheists and Communists (see Vol. II: Lenin, Celsus, Marx, Porphyry, Engels, Ingersoll, Nietzsche, et al.) to Fascists and Catholics (Hitler, Mussolini, Charlemagne, Bloody Mary, Castro, Himmler, the Kennedy family, Califano of the HEW, Wallen- stein, Metternich, et al.) on through dead orthodox theologians (Barth, runner, Berkhof, Tillich, Miller, Machen, Warfield, Lightfoot, et al.) Neo-Evangelicals and apostate Fundamentalists (Sumner, Ockenga, oberts, Swaggert, Robertson, Afman, Custer, Waite, Martin, Trench, mcent, Wuest, Ramm, et al.). The Creed of the Cult identifies its members:

1 • There is no final written authority on this earth: there may have but it got lost.

2. There are multiple “final authorities” with preference and opin­ion determining which is right, under different circumstances,42 depend­ing on what you think, how you feel, and what you intend to prove.

3. The more education a man has, the better equipped he is to usurp the place of final authority because he has access to more information (i.e., more tricks to get rid of the final authority).

This is the real meaning of the word “CULTURE.” It is the fourth stage in every cycle of the history of the church, and it signals APOS­TASY every time it appears. Its first appearance in church history is between 220 and 250 A.D. It first appears in Alexandria, Egypt, coming to surface from roots that extend back to Genesis 3:1 through Pharaoh, Balaam, Saul, Solomon, Ahab, Zedekiah, Geshem the Arabian, Noadiah the prophetess, Plato, Jezebel, Socrates, Demas, Aristotle, Diotrephes, Herod, Pilate, Felix, and a renegade, apostate, Bible-denying “Jew”— Philo of Alexandria, the “Rabbi” of the “Great Synagogue.”

Briefly, let us examine the seed and roots of this mighty tree (Dan. 4), which became a lodging place (Matt. 13:32) for demons and is des­tined to be cut down (Ezek. 31) by God Himself.

Plato was an unsaved Greek philosopher (Col. 2:8) who thought that wisdom was the highest good (1 Cor. 1-3). He glamorized mind and reason and held that the “social mind”43 was the ideal mind. Since Plato hated democracy in any form, he conceived of a Fascist Utopia where evolution was the guarantee of progress. He taught that the state should take children away from the parents (as they have done in Soviet Russia for fifty years) and give them twenty years of “reeducation” (as the Communists did it in Vietnam and Cambodia). This consisted of a “values clarification program”44 where the state decided what was valuable and what wasn’t (exactly as it has been done in Soviet Russia for fifty years). Selective breeding (Adolph Hitler) and “guardian pools” for raising children (IRS and HEW in America) were to be installed. Subsequently, all the ills of cities and even the human race would be solved not by believing in God, or on God, or even believing God (that is Cain’s trouble: he believed in God, but he didn’t believe God), but by setting up men like himself (philosophers, 1 Cor. 1-3) as the rulers. All people would be forced by a police state to attend a church state temple under “priests” (exactly as the Roman Caesars tried to set it up). Capital punishment would be dealt out to people meeting in homes for “secret devotions” (as it has been done in Russia on numerous occa sions), and since he didn’t believe in heaven, hell, judgment, or the resurrection, Plato believed that land animals evolved from men an that God was a neuter “force.”45 Of these depraved, pseudo-scienti ic.

and Socialist doctrines, the great Deist, Emerson (1803-1882), said, “Bum the libraries, for their value is in THIS book!’’ When he said

“this book,” Emerson was not referring to the Bible or any book in the Bible: he was referring to Plato’s Republic. A more rabid and fanat­ical statement cannot be found in the entire history of the Third Reich (1933-1945) by any Nazi, including every speech that Hitler made and every release that Goebbels printed.

Now, Plato is the man whose philosophy was the guiding light at the first “Christian” school. One can see at a glance that the philo­sophical elite at such a school would be the faculty members (see note 36). The students would be “wards of the state” who were there for “reeducation,” and any “Christian” with less than ten years’ educa­tion would fall into the classification of a commercial fisherman (see Acts 4:13 and comments in that commentary). Twenty years was the requirement set down by Plato: that is, six years of grammar school, three years of junior high, three years of high school, four years of college, and then four years of postgraduate work: these are the years in America (1950-1960) required for earning the Ph.D. degree—twenty years. No, the Alexandrian Cult did not die out with Origen, nor did it cease to operate simply because Diocletian burned up some Bibles.

Pantaenus (145-200) left no writings behind. He was the leading light of the school at Alexandria until 190 A.D., but the only informa­tion we have on him is from a man who thought that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrote inspired literature.46 However, Clement, who followed him, always speaks of Pantaenus in terms of the very highest respect.47 He quite frankly states that Pantaenus was NOT a Bible believing Christian: he was a deep “gnostic” who had a “perfect insight into Christianity.”4* Having given us this for an anchor of trust and confidence, we are to believe that Pantaenus, the founder of the catechetical school at Alexandria—CATechetical—was a genuine Chris­tian. You are to further assume that from his time on the University °f Alexandria had to be a “Christian” institution: that anyone would assume this is beyond belief. There isn’t one historical document pro­duced by one historian in the history of the church that would indicate ~Jat Pantaenus knew any more about Jesus Christ than Herod or Pilate, ■f as much.

According to the school ’ s next president (Clement: 150-215 A. D.), was God who gave the Greeks their philosophy (see Plato’s Repub- ,c’ above). Clement considered star worship (Acts 7:42) to be God’s *ay of “helping people to a purer religion.”49 The fact that the New I cstament (Acts 7:42) flatly contradicted this blatant lying meant noth­

ing to Clement: where the Bible crosses the opinions of Christian edu­cators in the Cult, they are not the least concerned about what it says: they will simply alter the words to “teach” what they themselves have predetermined the scriptures “mean.”50

Clement of Alexandria was clear on the “gift of God is eternal life” (Rom. 6:23). In opposition to the Holy Spirit, he stated that a sinner gets to heaven by overcoming sensuality51 (see Col. 2:20-23 and comments in that commentary). Clement was also very clear on salva­tion: according to him there was no salvation outside of the church52 (and so say all orthodox Catholic popes). There is nothing in Clement’s writings, philosophy, teaching, or curriculum that shows he had any knowledge or acquaintance with the Holy Spirit at all. He cannot even quote a single passage where the Holy Spirit is mentioned except the one found in the King James Bible (1 John 5:7), which he refers to more than two hundred years before the corrupt Greek uncials (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) removed it, fashioning their manuscripts after the third century manuscripts which Origen corrupted.53 Even then, Clement is only mentioning the Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity. Having quoted the New Testament more than 2,400 times, Clement knows

nothing about the work of the Holy Spirit in creation (Gen. 1:2-3), regen­eration (John 1:13), sealing (Eph. 4:30), preserving (John 14:16), comforting (John 14:26), transforming (2 Cor. 3), or teaching (John 16:13). The reader may again attribute this to Clement’s ignorance, but when any educator quotes the Bible 2,400 times while he is engaged in proving that he is smart enough to correct God Almighty (see above) on such basic matters as salvation, he no longer can “abide in his stall. ”54 By virtue of his presumption and ambition (1 Cor. 8:1) he has placed himself in a garage with the “knowers” (gnostics), not the “unknowers” (agnostics). Why any Christian should blanch at judging a Bible perverter severely, after that perverter has assumed he is smart enough to per­vert the Bible, is a great mystery.

Origen (184-254) was very clear about the matter of sin: you have to have water sprinkled on you to wash away inherited sins55 (and so say all Catholic bishops and popes), and further, “we become united to Christ” not by 1 Corinthians 12:13, and not by the new birth, but by a “MYSTICAL KISS.”56 Bible students “who take their Bible studies seriously ’ ’ (to quote the Madison Avenue gimmick used in the twenti eth century to sell religious trash) know that a KISS (2 Sam. 15:5) can be a dangerous thing (Matt. 26:48), especially when it is “mystica (Hos. 13:2) instead of direct (Ps. 2:12). According to Origen s e* Testament—he quotes it more than 17,000 times—the Christian shou

study until he has a perfect knowledge of the “mysteries” (see any pagan religion), and then he can “attain a perfect likeness to God” before he dies and thus regain Adam’s image. According to Origen’s Old Tes­tament, the sun was not made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:15) because “no intelligent person” would believe that.57 This explains why both Scofield Reference Bibles (twentieth century) explained the verse away, exactly as Origen would have done it: the Alexandrian Cult did not die out in 300 A.D. It didn’t even get sick.

Adam and Eve ate nothing because it would be “childish” to believe that the account given in Genesis 3 was literal.58 So Westcott and Hort (1884) handled Genesis 1-3 exactly as Origen handled it. The Alexandrian Cult didn’t die out in 300 A.D. It didn’t even get feeble. The “Plan of Salvation” which Origen preached would appeal to any unsaved Roman emperor: “Let us then grasp eternal life and grasp it with all our force. God DOES NOT GIVE IT TO US: He offers it to us. It is in our power to stretch forth our hand by GOOD ACTS, grab hold of life, and place it within our soul.”59 Which, if Origen meant what he said, means that he has been burning in hell now for over sev­enteen centuries: that is, if the Bible is right instead of YOU (Matt. 23; Matt. 13; Eph. 2:1-4; John 3:36; John 3:16; Rom. 6:23; and Rom. 10:9-10). We shall assume that Origen was speaking in levity, or at the time he wrote these words he was getting “nervous in the service” while dealing with Servetus’ mother (chapter 4, note 63), who believed exactly the same thing. All unsaved Roman emperors believed in sal­vation by works, and, like Origen, none of them believed in a physical, bodily resurrection.

Origen’s method of handling the “hillbillies” of his day, who believed Luke 4:5 literally, was to tell them that only a “careless reader” would believe it while an “observant reader”60 could detect innumer­able places in the Bible like it (the building of the temple, etc.) where you could believe what you wanted to believe and discard the rest: that •s, after peeling the apple and spitting out the seeds you could announce that apples don’t have seeds and skins: they do. To this day (1980), this is the standard method used in advertising corrupt Bibles by Chris- tianity Today, The Sword of the Lord, Faith Magazine (BJU), Moody onthly, etc. You tell the reader that if he is “serious” or “conscien- tous, this “new” Bible is for him. “Observant” scholars prefer anything over a King James Bible, although the presidents of schools 1 e to be “associated” or “identified” with the King James Bible in er to con the suckers into coming to their school.61 Origen, while ” °wbeating the “careless” and “insincere” students of the word, used

the term “Catholic” in reference to 1 Peter just like he thought it was a Biblical expression.62

This, then, is a sample of the Christian culture propagated by the first “Christian” university. The reader may judge for himself how “Biblical” the curriculum must have been. But matters do not end here; if all Origen and his playmates had done was simply allegorize Genesis 1-3, lie about salvation, ridicule Bible believers, and correct the Bible in 30,000 places (see Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla),63 “reason would that we could bear with him” and his friends, as with any Bible-rejecting sinner. However, the school at Alexandria found itself in such a theological position with its pupils— many of them were very young—that it finally resorted to an Alexandrian expedient (from Plato) that marks the beginning of the end for Biblical Christianity in the west. You see, Plato constantly speculated on what he called “the prehistoric fall of the individual soul.”64 It was his own private reinterpretation of Genesis 3, by misplacing it into Genesis 1:1. Plato’s speculations about the soul were naturally taught at any Platonic institution, and the school at Alexandria set up by Pantaenus, follow­ing Philo, was PLATONIC; to this all historians agree. The problem that came up when Origen got up to teach was “how do the souls of BABIES or INFANTS get back up through the abyss of their ‘prehistoric fall’ if they die before they can climb up the trellis of the ‘mystical kiss’ (see above) and by good works ‘grasp’ (see above) eternal life?” Now, here would be a beautiful place for a tolerant Christian who has ‘ ‘broad­minded charity” toward those who “disagree” with him to exercise tolerance and understanding on a nonessential article of faith which could not be classified as a “fundamental.” The fundamentalist movement in America (1920-1950), though led by Baptists (Norris, Riley, Shields, etc.), had leaders who were somehow skittish when they constructed the “fundamentals” about naming immersion in water of an adult believer as one of the fundamentals. The reasoning behind this was obvi­ous: Luther and Wesley didn’t teach it, and weren’t they “godly”? Like Ignatius and Cyprian? Yes. Calvin and Bob Jones, Sr., didn’t teach this. Weren’t they godly? Like Irenaeus and Polycarp? Of course. Then why make an issue of something that the Bible “isn’t clear on”? Why ‘ RIDE A HOBBY HORSE”?

Well, in the first place, the issue might become connected with regeneration and the new birth, which it does; the new birth and re generation are essential issues and cannot be classified as theologica “hobby horses.” in the second place, if it is going to be discussed in relation to “nonelect children” going to hell—which it IS (Calvin a

Augustine)—and children going to Limbo—which it IS (all popes)— then it is imperative that the Bible believer get the matter settled and become as “fully persuaded in his own mind’’ on that subject as he is on the plan of salvation or the security of the believer.

Now, since the school of Alexandria had already rejected the Bible in scores of places (see above) and substituted speculative, Gnostic phi­losophy for the facts of scripture in those places, it is not surprising that neither Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, nor anyone they graduated nor anyone they influenced (Eusebius, Augustine, Constantine, et al.) could solve Plato’s “problem” with an open Bible in thirty years. Infants (and imbeciles and morons, for that matter) are said to be in a state of innocence (Deut. 1:39) until they have a knowledge of the law (Rom. 5:13). Where knowledge of sin as a violation of the law is not present (Rom. 4:15), sin is not imputed to individuals (Rom. 5:8), even though they were bom “dead in trespasses and sin” and inherited a sinful nature (Ps. 51:5). Neither John Calvin, Kuyper, Dabney, Hodge, Gill, Ross, Pink, Mauro, Warfield, Machen, nor Spurgeon could grasp that sim­ple, elemental, basic, fundamental truth of New Testament salvation. They were raised on Cult literature when it came to the subject of water baptism.

If a child died because of Adam’s sin, then he died for someone

else’s transgression, having committed none of his own; that is, he died without committing an act of sin. It therefore follows, as light follows darkness, that he can be saved without an act of receiving Christ. Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to the infant without works (Rom. 5:8) on the basis of his condition, which is innocence (Gen. 2; Deut. 1:39). Where he has an inward knowledge of the law (Rom. 7:8-10; 3:19), he has “had it,” as the expression goes; he must, by a deliberate act of faith, choose God’s righteousness. Again, let it be said with emphasis, that water baptism doesn’t enter the picture one time, before or after birth, with “elect” or “nonelect” infants from heathen or saved families, in ANY set of circumstances anywhere in the world. Water baptism doesn’t enter the discussion of the problem once: it is as irrelevant as a discussion of tennis balls.

The scriptures on these matters are clearer than the lens of a tele­scope, and the wasted (and Satanic) efforts of the school of Alexandria circumnavigate these plain Biblical truths—given by God in their own anguage (they all spoke Greek and had Greek manuscripts)—is an ever­sting testimony to the failure of Christian education to understand the rd of God when it is saddled up with science, religion, philosophy, e*tual criticism, and culture. Machen, Warfield, Wilson, Mauro,

Calvin, Augustine, and the popes never understood the problem, let alone the answer. With an army of stenographers and shorthand experts, with manuscripts in their hands that were copies from manuscripts removed from the “verbal, plenary, inspired, original autographs” by only one generation, Origen and Clement could no more expound the truths of God in dealing with New Testament salvation than Trajan, Nero, Domitian, or Diocletian.

The disastrous development which followed this blind arrogance and sanctified stupidity was the construction of the legend that babies are regenerated when they are sprinkled with water.63

We shall deal with this subject of baptismal regeneration at length in our next chapter. At this point, however, we should stop for a moment and sum up the work of the Alexandrian Cult, who founded and oper­ated Africa’s Most Unusual University, in the second and third centuries.

1. There is no indication that any teacher in it (or connected with it) was a born again, Bible believing child of God.

2. There is no indication that although Origen was a Greek grammarian, a textual critic, a Greek exegete, a Greek teacher, and a collator of manuscripts, that he had any more sense than a brass monkey when it came to understanding ninety percent of the Old Testament in Greek (or any other language), if he ever saw it.

3. There is no indication that any teacher or pupil in the school ever led anyone to Christ during the time of its operation, with the possible exception of Gregory Thaumaturgus.

4. There is no indication from any history that Origen knew any­thing about salvation as it is presented in the New Testament (Romans and Ephesians).

The crowning tribute to this apostate hell hole of “Christian” edu­cation was paid by the head of the ASV committee of 1901, Dr. Philip Schaff, who said (without blushing) that Origen was a man of “keen penetration,” fertile thought, and glowing imagination, and that as a “true divine” his brilliant talent and vast learning embraced all departments of philology, philosophy, and theology, making him the “most gifted, cultivated, and greatest scholar of his age.”66 A bald confession that the “age” which followed the apostles was a descent backwards into the midnight of heathen ignorance. We could expect a panegyric like this from the head of the translating committee of the ASV (1901), whose publication was recently likened to Joseph (the great est type of Christ in the Old Testament) by the apostate Lockman Foun dation (1960) when they issued the New /45K( 1960), recommende Y the Alexandrian schools in America. Of such fanatical flattery a

sacrilegious boasting we may say with Amos, “Hold thy tongue” (Amos 6:10); there are still some sane people left in the body of Christ in spite of “Christian scholarship.”

The end product of the Alexandrian Cult is the last thirty-five Alexandrian “bibles” that have been translated from Nestle’s Alexandrian text (the same as Hort, Aland, Metzger, et al.: multiple authorities, Matt. 6:24). These “eclectic texts,” representing the bound­less confusion in the minds of two of the most confused apostates who ever lived (Clement and Origen), are the contemporary survivors of seventeen centuries of church history: the everlasting witness to man’s infidelity and unfaithfulness in believing what God said (Gen. 3:1). Africa’s Most Unusual University has branches in every state in the union in 1980.


Water, Water Everywhere

“And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood” Revelation 12:15

Personal workers and personal witnesses for Christ in the twenti­eth century are familiar with the vast network of water lilies that cover the pond of professing Christendom. Although not all of these are “water babies,” they are certainly hypnotized by the thought that H2O and black magic are a part of New Testament salvation. The teaching, briefly (which is adhered to by 50,000,000 Catholics, “Church of Christ” elders, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Reformed churches, and Lutherans), is that sprinkled water or immersion in water, in the name of certain formulas (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38), produces a mag­ical transformation in a sinner of such a character that it brings forth a “new creature in Christ” who has been regenerated by the Third Per­son of the Godhead.

The standard scriptural alibi for this African set-up (see below) is that John 3:5 is not a reference to the first birth—although physical life first originated in water (Gen. 1:20), and family genealogies are streams, and a man’s wife is his “fountain" (Prov. 5:16-17), and the context of John is birth by flesh (John 3:6)—no; John 3:5 is a reference to water BAPTISM, if we are to believe the standard creeds of the Catholic church (Catechism on Baptism), the Church of England (Thirty-nine Articles), the Presbyterians church (Westminster Confession), the Methodist urch (Handbook), and the Campbellite “elders.” Further, we are supposed to believe that Romans 6:1-3 and Ephesians 4:5 are refer- y68 to water baptism although the word “water” occurs nowhere in er epistle. The master scriptural “tool” for mishandling these Plages is Acts 2:38, which is read into Romans 6; John 3; Galatians ’ P^es>ans 4; and Titus 3:5. And this outrageous interpretation (all

Roman Catholic interpretation is private interpretation) and wresting of the scriptures to destruction has existed and persisted from the sec­ond century following Christ’s birth until this present moment. With the progressive revelation of the New Testament before the face of every man involved in the Alexandrian perversions, the Cult continues to teach the lie right into the Great Tribulation. With Acts 15:9, 11 showing clearly that water baptism had nothing to do with salvation, with 1 Peter 3:19-21 showing that water baptism was only a figure of salvation (never a “sign” or a “seal,” as circumcision: Rom. 4:11), with no water in Ephesians 4 or near it, with no water in Romans 6 or near it, with Gentiles being baptized in water AFTER they were saved (Acts 10), with the Gospel defined (1 Cor. 15:1-6) as a doctrine excluding water baptism (1 Cor. 1:14-16), and with “obedience” to that gospel defined as “exercising faith in it” (Rom. 10:9-10; 1:5; 16:26), the African black magic, conjured up in Africa, went right on through seventeen centuries of church history as “Christian” doctrine and right on into the twenti­eth century.

According to most church historians (Mosheim, Robinson, Armitage, Vedder, Newman, et al.), only adult believers were immersed up until the year 200 A.D.1 Tertullian2 says in 216 A.D. that adults only are the proper subjects for baptism, and later he rejected water baptism as a means of regeneration and said that it was a teaching of the devil.3 Clement of Rome, as far back as 96 A.D. said that no one could be baptized until he had first received instruction and has been examined.4 Not even the grossly corrupt Epistle of Barnabas makes the mistake of thinking that infants can be baptized: it states that a believer must “put his trust in the cross BEFORE he is baptized.”5 Justin Martyr (100-165), who believed implicitly in baptismal regeneration, discus­ses in his Apology6 the matter of raising children. Not once in his discussion does he intimate that any child should be baptized to become a Christian. Although Justin believed that water baptism regenerated a “believer” (and Justin cites the Campbellite proof text, John 3:5, exactly as Philip Schaff and his family believed it all of their lives), Justin is not in favor of baptizing babies. Although Clement of Alexan­dria is so far out in the bushes mentally that he thinks the Old Testament saints in Hades had to be baptized by Christ or the apostles after they had been dead for a hundred to two thousand years,8 he cannot bring himself to baptize babies yet. Even in this atmosphere of Bible rejec tion and Bible perversion, no one is foolish enough to think that babies are the proper subjects of baptism. Dionysius of Alexandria (254) wi not baptize until a profession of faith is made.9 Hilary of Poitiers (3 <1

Athanasius (360), Jerome of Dalmatia (378), and Basil of Caesarea (379) taught that no one should be baptized until they openly and publicly professed faith in Jesus Christ.10 Likewise said Chrysostom (400), Gregory of Nazianzen (386), and Ambrose of Milan (390).

Historians from 90-300 make no mention of infant baptism as being practiced anywhere, although it is noted that Clement of Alexandria and Origen were teaching doctrines that could only end up in that kind of operation. Philip Schaff says that Origen was responsible for the acceptance of infant baptism. G.H. Orchard says that the first indica­tion of infant baptism as a “Catholic” belief (to prove Catholic faith in line with “Holy Mother Church”) was stated by Aurelius Augustine (354- 430), an African, who thought, as Origen (an African), that the Septuagint with the Apocrypha was inspired.12

Now, although Clement and Origen would not actually baptize babies, it was at Alexandria that water baptism was first associated with the Christian education of children. Here baptism of “minors” began with boys of ten and eleven years old and gradually went down to the DVBS age, where “Aunt Becky” with her flannelgraph was trying to get the parents of her children to make out their wills to the school: children in the department were six, seven, and eight years old.13 In Alexandria by 220 A.D. baptism was taught to be the “sacrament” by which a person becomes a church member; before, it had only sig­nified a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.14 These little boys under Clement made up an “academy” of choir boys who put on little skits and “vespers,” highlighting songs that Clement himself composed. While engaged in his official duties. Clement wrote a book called Pedagogue.15 In this book Jesus was the "Pedagogue, ’’and all the dis­ciples were children instead of grown men; after all, it is easier to flannelgraph the kiddies into day care centers than it is to tell grown men they are going to hell for their devilment. When Clement baptized his choir of “infants” (that is what he called them), they were given honey and milk as “visible signs” of “invisible grace”16 which was supposed to constitute a “sacrament.” Obviously, Clement was not reading anywhere in the New Testament when he drummed up this inno- tion: any New Testament. This helped to open the door wider at exandria for Egyptian images, pagan rites, and the Oriental sciences,

^gan there in the first place (see previous chapter). With the ^®ux of this great, universal, pan-religious movement had come $accas (175-242), with his library,17 and his fellow faculty ance,,Crs' Since aA °f them believed in exercising “love and forbear-

I toward those who had different “preferences” or used “different

versions” or had ‘‘different life-styles’” (and different interpretations about Biblical passages), they decided that Christianity really consisted of using FALSEHOOD to teach the truth.18 After all, they had already decided that Genesis 3 was a falsehood, but it “taught great truths.” Falsehood, then, in the cause of virtue was harmless. Or to put it as the Cult members of the twentieth century (Robert Sumner; John R. Rice; Bob Jones, III; et al.) put it: ten attacks on the Virgin Birth of Christ, His Deity, His atonement, and His plan of salvation in a trans­lation is perfectly all right, if one at the same time makes the “word of God” CLEARER, or if the man engaged in the devilment is a “godly Fundamentalist” who professes to believe in verbal inspiration. Another twentieth century version in the same Satanic vein (Matt. 13:33; Gal. 5:9) runs like this: if you can find the fundamentals or major doctrines of the faith SOMEWHERE in a garbage can or a sewage disposal unit, then it is a reliable can (or unit). This is how garbage cans and sewage disposal units are converted into “bibles.” Both of the above concepts are taught as Christian doctrine in fundamental colleges, seminaries, and universities in 1980.

According to F.F. Bruce19 we can recognize quite clearly at the end of the second century the Catholic church, the Catholic canon, and the Catholic faith. Although this is absolutely true, F.F. Bruce (as ninety percent of his fellow Cult members) fails to inform his reader what this means. It means: 1. The Catholic church at the end of the second cen­tury (300 A.D.) is a body of Bible rejecting traditionalists who have accepted the teachers of philosophy and the church fathers where those gentlemen contradicted scripture. 2. The Catholic canon in 300 A.D. is the Alexandrian canon created by the Cult, containing both Old and New Testament Apocrypha (later they dropped the New Testament Apocrypha: Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and Barnabas).20 3. The Catholic faith is a combined synthesis of Alexandrian Gnosticism, apostate Judaism, dead orthodox Christianity, and philosophical spec­ulation. In short, there appears at the end of the second century (300 A.D.) a “great tree” in which the fowls of the air find a lodging place; these fowls are denominated as devils or demons in the New Testa­ment (Mark 4:15; Matt. 13:19; Rev. 18:2) and in the Old Testament (Eccl. 10:20; Gen. 8:7; Isa. 34:11-15). It is no more “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) than Rosicrucianism or Communism.

Baptismal regeneration and infant baptism both begin with what apostates call “oral tradition,” and since the Catholic “faith” (see above) always sets tradition against the word of God to eliminate it as Chris

tian teachers set the N1V and NASV against the A V to eliminate it—the two fables need careful examination.

There are evidences that the group called Donatists (also called Montenses) were being killed for “rebaptizing” adults before Aurelius Augustine gets up the Council of Numidia (415) to state that people who reject infant baptism are accursed,21 Augustine’s concern about the “infants” is well-founded, for if the Donatists were rebaptizing peo­ple, they were proclaiming to the world that their first baptism wasn’t any good. Why not? According to Augustine, the only true baptism was water baptism in the Catholic church, and any baptism out of the Catholic church was heretical.22 If anyone was getting rebaptized, some­one was claiming that Catholic water baptism could not REGENERATE or give the NEW BIRTH. It became imperative to prove that Catholics could get an extra lap on anyone by sprinkling the baby as soon as he was born, and then on no one could “rebaptize” him later. To estab­lish this ghastly lie, Augustine had to prove that infant baptism was not only scriptural, but that ADULT BAPTISM was heresy if the adult had already been baptized as an infant.

Shouldn’t we follow Augustine? Don’t his Confessions prove he was something a little short of an angel? After all, didn’t Martin Luther accept that part of his theology where he dealt with grace and faith? After all, could two men so “greatly used of God” lead us astray? Well, if Cyprian and Polycarp did, and if Justin and Irenaeus did, why would any Bible believer think that any man couldn’t lead him astray (Rom. 16:18; Rev. 12:9) under certain pressures and conditions?

It is apparent that the body of oral traditions, which eventually leav­ened and corrupted the Christian church and transformed it into the Papal church, came from the “church fathers,” of whom Augustine was one.

The first of these “fathers” was Papias (60-130 A.D.), who attempted to get the book of Revelation out of the canon of scripture by denying its apostolic autograph.23 Some other anonymous “father” drummed up a little story about Christ being born in a cave.24 These y111*658 bttle “opinions” by “godly, qualified authorities” enter into camp as softly and as politely as the proverbial camel who got his ^ead into the tent. It we are to believe the fable called “The Acts of

I. we are to believe that the apostle Paul was a bald-headed, gOoked-legged, long-nosed man “full of grace” who often “had the . of an angel.”25 (Exactly where this puts an angel from a photoge- ^P°int of view is rather difficult to say.) The Millennial reign of Jesus i. Was Questioned by many as they associated the teaching with a

heretic called Cerinthus.26 However, the greatest and foremost Bible perverting philosopher of his day was Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-202), who tells us that Matthew was written in the Hebrew dia­lect, that Mark wrote from the mouth of Peter, and that Peter preached the Gospel in Rome.21 From this lump of sourdough came the fanatical teaching of Westcott and Hort (1884) and Eberhard Nestle (1960) that a hundred words should be removed from the New Testament because Matthew copied Mark, or Mark copied Luke, or Luke copied Matthew, or Mark copied Matthew, or Luke and Matthew copied Mark. This “two document theory’’ was accepted by Dr. A.T. Robertson of Louisville, Kentucky, who taught the Greek grammarians in the United States (1900-1940).

Clement of Alexandria has Peter in Rome and Mark writing down Peter’s words.28 Thus two genuine fables became part of the Christian curriculum at a “Christian” university. There is as much historical evidence that Napoleon was in Cuba as there is that Peter was in Rome, or within four hundred miles of it in any direction. Jerome (340-420) picks up the other end of Irenaeus’ little fairy tale and adds that Mat­thew wrote the Gospel in Judaea in the Hebrew language.29 He adds a cute little note about Mark, however, and tells us that Mark was actu­ally the first Bishop of Alexandria.30 This ties the bundle neatly together, for it makes the School at Alexandria, under Origen and Clement, the second highest authority in the Roman Empire, aside from Rome, since they got their information directly from Peter through Mark. There is no more evidence that Mark was in Egypt or that Peter told him any­thing about the Gospel than there is evidence that Christ was crucified on a dogwood tree. Augustine preserves these “sacred traditions” of “Holy Mother Church” and nudges the old Matthew-Hebrew-Gospel story gently along31 just like he thought it was safe to add a little momentum to a lie. But once the freight train has started downhill, with the brakes off, there is no turning back. In erecting her monstrous super­structure of “tradition,” the Catholic church builds so feverishly on these little fables that by 400 A.D. no one could recognize Biblical Christianity anywhere in the building.

Here is John, “a virgin chosen to serve the Virgin.”32 Mark, by baptism,” was the son of Simon Peter.33 Papias and Pantaenus both say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.34 “Babylon” actually means "Rome, ’’according to Jerome and Kenneth Taylor (Living Bible, although this must be limited to PAGAN Rome in the past in order t a no one will confuse Christian-killing Caesars with Christian-killing popes. It is our old friend Philo (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) who hears t a

Mark was in Alexandria preaching “what Peter taught him,”35 so even­tually Mark will have to be the first Gospel written and have the preeminent place if one is going to get along with the Alexandrian Cult: every faculty member of every Christian college in America (1980) believes that Mark was the first one written, so the first two verses have been altered in every corrupt version (ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, IV, NIV) recommended by apostate Fundamentalists. The readings in Mark 1:1-2 in the ASV, NIV, and NASV are the African readings of the Alexandrian Cult.

Downward goes the midnight express; the engineer, brakeman, and fireman have gotten out of the cab “way back.” The Lord’s Supper is now a “heavenly sacrifice ” instead of a “memorial” (Cyprian);36 Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are to be disputed because Clement of Alexandria is worried about how certain educated heretics and infidels

“feel” about them. Having become convinced that New Testament Christianity was Jewish (Peter, not Paul; Matthew, not John), it was decided by the school at Alexandria that Peter’s work at Rome (fol­lowed by Mark’s at Alexandria) had officially determined where the most important centers of New Testament Christianity were to be found. The fact that Paul came from Asia Minor (Acts 9:30), that Antioch was

in Syria (Acts 11:26), and that Rome and Alexandria in the scriptures picture Satan and the world system, never dented these “devout Catholics” once. They were busy courting Holy Mother Tradition in order to prove a political point (Col. 2:8), in violation of their Divine commission and instructions (Col. 2:8). Consequently, when these self­deceived fanatics read their “first Gospel” (Mark) and got to Mark 16:9-20, they saw a tremendous problem. If New Testament Christi­anity in Rome and Alexandria came from the Jewish apostles, and the leading Jewish apostle at that (Simon Peter), and if at least one of the Gospels was written in the Jewish language (Matthew), what could one do with the Jewish SIGNS (Mark 16:17) that were recorded in Mark (1 Cor. 1:22), when not one teacher on the faculty at Alexandria or one bishop in Rome could produce one SIGN (Mark 16:17-19)! Why, y the beard of St. Bernadette, the Jewish signs were in the book which Was written by the apostles to Alexandria—Mark! The solution to this Problem was simple in the extreme: the faculty at Alexandria went back • _^eremiah 36, recovered Jehudi’s penknife, and cut off the ending

™ Mark 16. Consequently, all the manuscripts copied thereafter by P®®Ple who trusted Alexandrian “higher education” omitted the lng. Unfortunately for Alexandria, this depraved act of misguided ticism also enabled every real Bible believer from 200 A.D. to the

present time to identify the corrupt manuscripts of the Cult whenever and wherever they showed up: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, recommended by Bob Jones University, omit the ending.

What began with questioning the authorship of a book in the Bible (Revelation) ended with the critical mutilation of the living words of the living God.38

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

But by far the worst damage done to the local assemblies of the early church (excluding, of course, the hideous persecutions of Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Pius, Aurelius, Severus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian) was done by what we call “the water dogs” (Campbellites), who insisted on preserving an oral tradition that violated the entire New Testament: the tradition that the new birth occurred by black magic when a “candidate” was put into water.39 New Testament water baptism was by immersion according to Philip Schaff,40 the his­torian Liddon,41 Dr. Cave, Dean Goulburn, and the standard doctrinal

folio (the Pedalion) of the entire Greek church.42 Queen Elizabeth of England (1533-1603) was immersed in water, and even the baby­sprinkler Jo/in Calvin (1509-1564) admitted that primitive baptism was by immersion.43 They descended into the water in 48 A.D., if we are to believe what the Epistle of Barnabas says about it.44 Men are still “descending INTO the water” in 95 A.D. according to Hennas.45 Mosheim, Danver, Benson, Horne, Ellis, Robinson, and G.H. Orchard

bear witness to the facts of history that the early converts were immersed following a profession of faith.46

The first indication that something has gone wrong with the H2O is the appearance in the Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve— supposedly written about 120 A.D.) of a peculiar passage. In this fab­ricated document we are told that the water in which sinners are to be

baptized has to be “living water,”47 and if the bishop can’t find enough “living water” to immerse the candidate in, he is to pour water three times upon the man’s head.48 The authority for this is quite naturally the opinion of the writer. How reliable is this Didache (the Teaching)? Well, the rest of the document says that a Bible believer must fast on Wednesday and Friday because only hypocrites fast on Monday and Thursday.*9 A Bible believing Christian must pray “the Lord’s Prayer three times a day.50 Only baptized people are to take the “Eucharist because Matthew 7:6 is a reference to a priest giving a Eucharist to an unbaptized person.51 The body of Christ is made up of tribulation Jews (Matt. 24:13) who will have to be gathered together from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:31)- 1

The Didache states that the negative Golden Rule of Brahmanism is the law for New Testament Christians under grace.53 The Lord’s Supper in the church age is the Jewish sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 (which takes place in the Millennium, see Ezek. 40-48).54 The blood atonement of Jesus Christ for sinners is not the means of justification and redemp­tion at all: salvation is by observing a series of eight “thou shalt nots”:33 salvation is by works.56

Of such a nature is the original “apostolic authority’’ of “Holy Mother church” for pouring water on a self-righteous sinner instead of immersing a saved child of God in water.

The Didache agrees slightly with the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in “orthodox” teaching, but its closest semblance (as we should have taken for granted) is to an EGYPTIAN work called “Apostolical Church Order. ”57 The first thirteen chapters of this Coptic (Memphitic) work, from North Africa, correspond exactly to the “ortho­dox” teaching of the Didache.

History may accept both forgeries at face value: if the Didache professes to be “The Teaching of the Twelve,” it may well be “The Teaching of the Twelve,” but it is certainly not the teaching of the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:2-4), nor is it the teaching of any one of them or any combination of two or more of them. “The Twelve” of the Didache are more likely twelve unclean spirits who managed to get out of the pigs (Mark 5:13) before they ran down the hill and committed hogicide.

The next man down the tube is Justin Martyr, who tells his readers that a sinner is regenerated according to John 3:5 by being immersed in water.58 Justin calls the Lord’s Supper a “eucharist” and joins Acts 2:38 to Titus 3:5 as good as any Campbellite in Abilene, Texas, ever did it (1980).59 By disconnecting the word “regeneration” from the “Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5) and tying it up with “water” (which doesn’t occur one time in the entire book of Titus), an overflowing “flood” wells up which regenerates the sinner. Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink. There is no water in the Epistle to Titus, nor in * e Epistle to the Galatians, nor in the Epistle to the Romans. Some- °ne is preaching with a “water fixation.” He is reading words into the

1 le that occur nowhere in ANY set of Bible manuscripts, Greek, Coptic, Synac, Latin, or otherwise. The head of the ASV (1901) committee quite naturally accepts the Campbellite position,60 and he also insists that water ^>tlSm *s a sP'ritual circumcision and a SEAL (Rom. 4:11); it is nei- r of them, nor has been, nor ever will be, world without end, amen.

R. nce this false doctrinal position was taken—that water regener- Tr*a Slnner—the obvious corollary followed: it must have only cleansed

him from PAST sins (Heb. 9:6-20) committed before he was baptized (Acts 22:15-16). What then has to be done about future sins? Since Christ’s death was not going to be enough to redeem and justify the sinner in this system, he had to “tote his own” the rest of his life and “endure to the end”61 by “observing his baptismal vows.” This brought about the development of two more heresies: no assurance of salvation and the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance.62

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

What began by questioning the authorship of the book of Revelation wound up producing the greatest anti-Biblical, God-defying ecclesias­tical system in the entire western world.63

Along with this mania for liquid salvation came the mania for liquid communion. Before the local assemblies had progressed a hundred years beyond the completion of the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper was being turned into another African rite of black magic which was des­tined to be performed by “priests” and priests only. Pastors and ordained elders were out of the question, for only a priest could perform a sacri­fice. “Thy Holy Table”64 became “Thy Holy ALTAR,”65 which hosted “Thy Holy Bloodless SACRIFICE,”66 given by an officiating priest instead of an “elder.” The final act of blasphemy in this “dangerous delusion”67 was a sinner actually calling a piece of bread “The Lamb of God...SACRIFICED.”68

In this hysterical lunacy, Irenaeus cries out: “The Eucharist is the human organism of Jesus Christ, made up of his flesh, sinews, and bones, and the cup is His blood and the bread is His body! It nourishes our literal flesh and bones because it is literal flesh and blood”!69 (This is the “medicine of immortality,”70 which Schaff calls “the Eucha­rist” after Cyprian’s advice.71) “Do thyself no harm: for we are all here” (Acts 16:28). Neither Cyprian, Schaff, nor Irenaeus paid any more attention to 1 Corinthians 11:26 than Origen or Clement.

By now the student of church history should begin to “get the drift’ in regard to the subsequent history of the church (325-600 A.D.). The foundations of the harlot church have been laid before 300 A.D.; when all of these fairy tale cement blocks, legendary bricks, delusory stones, and leavened mortar are combined, one beholds the twentieth century Roman Catholic church as a complete edifice. Only prayers to Mary, a few candles, teachings on clerical celibacy,72 and addenda on “purgatory” are needed to complete the tower; Origen and Clement both believed in purgatory.73 Summing up the teachings of the ‘ fathers of the church” (Matt. 23:9), we have now (300 A.D., the time Constantine) a set-up where all Satan needed was a politician to absor

the church into the state, thereby producing an anti-scriptural state church with full political power to kill Bible believing Christians; this time in an acceptable manner, that is, with the approval of the “Christian” church. This is exactly what happens (see chapter 9). What is produced is a religious monstrosity, a two-faced political cobra which professes to be the church that Jesus Christ founded (Matt. 16:16-18). “Holy” Mother church to this point had no political world ruler to sponsor her and enforce her false doctrines on the local assemblies which are scat­tered all over the empire; she had not yet defected (200 A.D.) far enough from the truth to be worthy of that honor. However, with the Alexandrian school in Egypt, “Holy” Mother church begins to qualify for the “play­offs,” for she becomes intellectual enough and cultured enough to hobnob with emperors; in such a fellowship some Roman ruler with a keen sense of political expediency74 would see a great “potential.” It is not that the Roman Empire was “converted” in the fourth and fifth centuries; it was simply that there arose so much disturbance and trouble from real Christian witnesses in the second and third centuries that a wise pagan ruler would eventually see that victory lay in sub­verting them. Conversion was never a factor in Constantine’s mind: at least not in the Biblical sense. Constantine believed to the end7S that salvation was attained by “entering the mysteries” through sprinkling of water.

So, by the time of Constantine, after 267 years of fiery trials (33-300), there appears a “Catholic” church with “Christian” theo­logical ideas running somewhat as follows:

1. Mark wrote at Peter’s dictation: Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew.

2. John the apostle didn’t write Revelation: a “presbyter” did. g 3. Salvation is by works after being sprinkled with water, or hav­ing water poured on oneself, or after being immersed.

g? 4. The Lord’s Supper is an unbloody sacrifice offered by a priest, but it is really “unbloody” blood.

| 5. Philosophy and science are both equal authorities with the scrip­ture. tradition is ALSO of equal authority (Mark 7:1-13).

I 6. Infants must be baptized in water to get them regenerated.

I '■ After a season in purgatory, everyone mayeventually get saved.

A bishop is the supreme authority, even if he is a fornicating, uquor-headed reprobate.

I 9. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle wrote God-breathed literature.

• There is no literal heaven or hell, and possibly no bodily resurrection. J

11. The name of the New Testament local assembly is “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

12. The “Bible” includes Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith, and possibly the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas (Sinaiticus).

13. The pastor of a local assembly is a priest.

Now, Roman Catholics would be the first to deny that they were ever connected with numbers 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and possibly one other, however, the history of Catholicism is a long history of casuistry, soph­istry, camouflage, and double-talk.76 There is a way to talk your way around everything, but history is quite brutal when it comes to FACTS (see chapter 13, 14, 15). The purpose in exalting tradition to an equal place of authority with the scripture is so as the rascal in charge of spread­ing lies can prove anything he wants to prove that is contrary to the scriptures. By setting up conflicting authorities, the church can arbitrate as the final authority. The traditions listed above are blatant refutations of the word of God, and there is nothing in the list that will meet the demands of Biblical revelation, no matter who interprets what passage which way (see Rome—The Great Private Interpreter, 1969). The traditions of the church fathers (and other traditions similar to them) prepared the local assemblies to accept conflicting authorities. Since the state was always an authority (Rom. 13:1-5), they are getting in position to succumb to state church domination, under an unholy force as murderous and as false as any church state in pagan Rome which operated under the Caesars. If they do not submit to this new “Rome,” they are in a position where they must run for their lives to “the wilderness” in order to maintain their purity of doctrine and practice.77 The Bible believing pastors and their churches do not submit to this new Rome; they run.

Every local assembly throughout this period (100-300 A.D.) that desired to follow the scriptures, instead of the traditions of men, had to eventually break with the real apostates who were calling themselves “Catholic.”78 These groups (Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Paterines, Picards, Lionists, Bulgarians, Montenses, Messalians, Euchites, etc.) became the offscouring of “Holy Mother church” and became branded by Protestant historians, as well as Cath­olic historians, as “heretics.” Since ninety-nine percent of the histon ans of early church history (100-1600 A.D.) were Catholics, they amass evidence to the moon to prove that anyone who was not a “catholic | was a heretic. To give the student of history the impression that ^eret^ are only “splinter groups,” a number of names were invented tor t

Bible believers, who actually formed one unit—BIBLE BELIEVERS. But to help propagate the Satanic “mystery of iniquity,” they were given as many names as the Catholic mind could invent: this was to present a lineup where the reader beholds, on the one hand, a large, unified body of “orthodox believers” (Roman Catholics who are “apostolic in faith and practice”) and on the other hand, a thousand sects or “cults” which are “heretical schismatics.” As it turns out in reality (325 A.D.), the lineup is thousands of Bible believing people on the one hand, being persecuted by one heretical, anti-scriptural, pagan hierarchy hiding behind a church-state setup on the other hand. Whenever a group of Bible believing people abandon this pagan bride of Satan (Rev. 17:1-6), they must be called by a name to separate them from Roman “ortho­doxy.” A few of these names are Dispensationalists, Fundamentalists, Separatists, Methodists, Norrisites, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Ruck- manites, Waldenses, Albigenses, Darbyites, Arnoldists, Vaudois, Cathari, Petrobrusians, Paterines, Hussites, Quakers, Calvinists, etc. Observe further that if any of the groups listed above apostatize from their belief in the Bible, then that group sets itself up as a second “apos­tolic standard for orthodoxy” and begins to label all Bible believers outside of it as heretics. The modern standard of Orthodoxy is called FUNDAMENTALISM. Apostate Fundamentalists look upon Bible believers as heretics: members of a cult. This view is as old as the Roman Catholic church (325 A.D.) and does not (in essential outlook) vary from it a bit.

We know the relative doctrinal purity of any group listed above, for two outstanding differences within the groups themselves show up exactly as they showed up in 100-300 A.D.: it is their attitude toward WATER and church states. The issue among Bible believing ‘schismatics” was never, at the time of their defection from “Cathol­icism,” the Deity of Christ or the Blood Atonement, nor was it the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection. The issue was their attitude toward a church state (313 A.D.), and even before that it was the issue °u ^2<^' Whatever differences they may have had among themselves ~°ut Pre-millennialism or eternal security, their major defection can judged by the distance they moved away from Rome in regard to sprinkling babies. Those who retained members of the Alexandrian Cult . ^ePt near to Rome kept on sprinkling babies. Those who made a ® break absolutely refused to baptize babies under any conditions °'^tians, Donatists, Bogomiles, Albigenses, Paulicians, etc.).

ow, the man who was responsible more than any other man in rc history for the Satanic teaching that unbaptized babies could go

to hell was Aurelius Augustine (354^30 A.D.).79 Of this wretched, lying tyrant and perverter of the Bible, John Lord says80 he was “the most intellectual man of his time, the oracle of the Latin church.” Further, Augustine was such an immortal “benefactor of mankind” that no church council could do anything without his presence. Being a “master of words,” he was a man of boundless influence and authority. He “won every heart by love,” and his death left the world in “darkness and tears”!

He also caused the murder of several hundred Christians during his lifetime and was directly responsible for the death of several hun­dred thousands after his own death.81 He also shut up the kingdom against men and prevented them from finding Christ by teaching them that the new birth was water sprinkling in the Roman Catholic church. In short, he was a Bible perverting liar.

Of this deluded, fifth century Torquemada, Philip Schaff, the his­torian, says that there was no teacher of the ancient period who was more "consistent in his views unless it was ORIGEN.” Schaff would give Augustine the highest rank in philosophy (Col. 2:8) and science (1 Tim. 6:20) and would also give the self-righteous despot credit for advancing psychology. He, like Origen, was “above his times.”82 By this you are to gather that science (1 Tim. 6:20), philosophy (Col. 2:8), and psychology are advances beyond believing the divine warnings you just read in the Biblical passages just listed. If Augustine was “in advance of his times,” then the Catholic massacres of the twelfth to sixteenth centuries are the “times” that finally caught up with Augustine.

Augustine’s "consistency of view”83 was this: he, as a five-point Calvinist, believed that the eternal decrees of election by a sovereign God were conditioned, or at least modified, when a Catholic priest sprin­kled a baby: this “elected” the baby.84 Augustine’s “consistency of view” in regard to the Second Coming of Christ was remarkable; and since there are more than twice as many verses in the Bible dealing with this doctrine than any other two doctrines, we should make much of it. Augustine believed that Jesus Christ’s Second Coming was a thou­sand year “process” where He came one piece at a time, on a Roman Catholic “holy table,” as the priest offered up the “sacrifice”82— evolutionary ubiquity. But undoubtedly the most “consistent” thing about the man, who was the “greatest Christian since New Testament times, was his attitude toward the water babies.87 Augustine boldly proclaime in public: “ALL who affirm that young children receive everlasting life albeit they be not by the sacrament of grace or baptism renewe , and will not that young children which are newly born from their

mother’s womb shall be baptized, taking away ORIGINAL SIN, that they are ACCURSED” (anathematized).88 In view of the Bible—which Augustine quoted more than four thousand times—and its clear teach­ing about these matters (see chapter 5, notes 64-65), what would a Bible believing historian be doing raving about Augustine’s “consistency” and his being the “greatest Christian since New Testament times”? Why, such a confession would mean that no Christian from 70 A.D. to 400 A.D. believed enough Bible to tell a man how to get saved. With the church fathers quoting the New Testament more than thirty-six thou­sand times in that period, how does the “greatest Christian” since the New Testament wind up with the most depraved, godless piece of nonsense that a pagan could dream up? Obviously, Augustine was not reading the Bible when he developed his philosophy: ANY Bible.

Augustine and his Catholic friends at the Council of Mela in Numidia (415) agreed that children are saved from hell and get eternal life by sprinkling water89—provided they have a conversion of heart LATER! To show how consistent he was, Augustine then decided, after the

council, that although water sprinkling could regenerate, take away orig­inal sin, and put the baby into Christ, it didn’t do it to every baby- only elect babies.90 Since no one (including the baby!) knew who was elected until he was dead,91 no Bible believing Christian could claim John 5:24, Romans 8:28, Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 1:8, or Jude 24. Augustine simply yanked the rug of faith in the promises out from under the feet of every child of God who was “standing on the prom­ises.” That is, he put forth his own philosophy as a substitute for the Bible. Or, to put it ‘“consistently ” (see Schaff, above): a sinner is saved from hell and “born again” by sprinkling, but he can still be lost and go to hell after he is sprinkled if he is NOT one of the “elect.” This is the “consistent” position of John Calvin (1509-1564) and the Reformed churches of Holland, Michigan (1980). This is the “consis­tency” which Schaff (ASV, 1901), J.G. Machen, Benjamin Warfield, Md Berkhof admired so much. When Robert Sumner appeals to the duplicity put forth in the church writings of Warfield and Schaff, trying to Prove to the reader that the New ASV and the NIV and the ASV followed e majority of manuscripts in their translating, he cited men who are more honest or consistent in dealing with salvation and regenera-

on than Augustine or Origen.92

Augustine’s theology is the extra coal car that derails the freight The Council of Carthage (fifth council) in North Africa backed ? ugustine, in 401, to turn his theological hallucinations in an “ortho- x decree (Council of Mela, 415 A.D.). In 789 A.D., Charlemagne

(Charles the Great) made infant baptism compulsory in a state law. But even long before Charlemagne (413), the “Catholic” church got the emperors Theodosius and Honorius to declare capital punishment for Christians who wouldn’t baptize infants or for anyone who would rebaptize adults. Saint (dig that) Augustine says that any man who doesn’t believe in infant baptism (J. Frank Norris, Billy Sunday, George Truett, Dr. DeHaan, Charles Spurgeon, Jack Hyles, President Carter, Mordecai Ham, Johnny Cash, and Dolly Parton) is an INFIDEL.93 In “saint” Augustine’s sick mind the “sponsor’s” faith (the “godfather” and “god­mother”) will save the baby because water sprinkling in the Bible took the place of circumcision. This teaching was propagated in the face of 1 Peter 3:21 and Romans 4:11 and in the face of the fact that Baron Bunsen said that baptism of newborn infants, accompanied by the vicar­ious promises of parents and other sponsors, was utterly unknown to the early church, not only down to the end of the second century, but “indeed, to the middle of the third.”94 What happened in the “middle of the third’’? Why, that’s easy: the graduates of Africa’s most unusual university were going out from their hellhole in Egypt (and from Caesarea) after being taught by Origen (184-254 A.D.).

The historian Grotius locates the cause of the trouble to be at the

Council of Carthage (North Africa), held in 252 A.D.95 Neander assents to the truth that North Africa was the location of the origin of infant baptism. The only question was (according to Neander) whether the child ought to be baptized immediately after its birth or “should we wait until eight days after his birth” as in the case of circumcision?96 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Having taken this reckless and disastrous course, contrary to every verse in the Bible in every passage dealing with circumcision or baptism (Rom. 4:11; 1 Peter 3:21)—water baptism is never a sign or a seal; it is only a “figure”—the Catholics now had to go temporarily insane, for now they had to pretend that they couldn’t read. You see, in the Bible only MALE children could get the “seal’’ through the “rite. ’’ Such are the psychotic ways of “godly, dedicated men”—who was more “godly” than Augustine.—, when they decide that they have more integrity than God Almighty- Along these lines, the student should remember that when it comes to matters of final authority, the “consistent scholars” of the nineteen and twentieth centuries are no more dependable than Augustine w e they decide they are able to correct the God-given text. Their go ness does not affect their lunacy. (-ncj

This brings up a serious problem; what should we do when w e God using Presbyterians and Episcopalians? How about John eS

Wasn’t Jonathan Edwards filled with the Spirit several times? How about H.C. Morrison and Francis Asbury (see Volume II)?

Now, this real and genuine problem is the basic cause for compro­mise and defection in every generation of church history. Basically, it amounts to “humanism”—the reverencing of men’s persons (2 Peter 2:18) to the point that when an issue arises between what those men taught and what God said (Rom. 3:4), what God said is abandoned (Gen. 3:1-5). For example, James Gray, A.T. Robertson, Robert Sumner, John R. Rice, Benjamin Warfield, and Curtis Hutson all taught that 2 Timothy 3:16 referred to the “original autographs.” Anyone read­ing the verse at one reading knows that it doesn’t (see the context, v. 15).

The sentiment seems to be that one would hurt the feelings of such men, if they are living, or dishonor their “sacred memory,” if they are deceased, and thereby incur the wrath of God.97 Why it never occurs to such tender souls to consider that the wrath of God is aimed at Bible rejection and Bible perversion (Rom. 1:18, 21, 25) is a great mystery. If a Christian would take the words of a man against the words of God simply because that man had a great spiritual experience (Augustine), or because he saw the falsehoods in Rome (Luther), or because he lived a passive life of prayer (Thomas a Kempis), or because he stood up against modernists (Warfield and Machen), or because he believed in the fundamentals (Wilbur Smith and A.T. Robertson), or because he loved the Lord enough to die for him (Polycarp, Martyr, Cyprian), that man is a deceived FOOL (Num. 23:19; Rom. 3:4; Isa. 8:20; John 8:40-44; 1 Thess. 2:13; and 2 Peter 1:16).

Whatever the “good” and “godly” Augustine may have done in his day—mainly opposing Pelagianism and talking about “grace”— his ungodly and unholy attitude toward what God SAID (Gen. 3:1) and his unchristian and beastly attitude toward those who believed what God said should not be emulated by a Mohammedan.

The outcome of Augustine's unscrupulous lying about scriptural baptism was a florid statement made by Pope Leo (440-461) not fifty years after Augustine’s death: “Baptism makes a change not only in e water but in the man that receives it; thereby he receives Christ I and Christ receives him...he is REGENERATED.”98 He is “regener- I ated like Adolph Hitler, Hermann Goering, and Teddy Kennedy (all n? °**C sPr*nkled)- The Council of Carthage stated that the “water” , _^fbe sanctified by prayer before “THE PRIEST” can make it wash a^,S*n’ HolY water.99 Black magic: North African voodooism.

E ow (415) a Bible believing Christian is cursed by God if he doesn’t

> Pt this Catholic voodooism as Christian doctrine; at least, that is


the official Roman Catholic position on the matter.100 There are four­teen curses pronounced against every Baptist in the United States of America by the official councils of Rome, which are (according to all nihil obstat publications) due the reverence which one is to give to the Holy Scriptures.101

So, out of its watery grave the beast appears (Job 41:31-33), more formidable than Moby Dick and more voracious than Jaws. He surfaces in 415 A.D., dripping water from head to foot. In the watery orgy that follows (500-1980 A.D.), water sprinkling is accepted as the Biblical doctrine of regeneration (Acts 2:38) and the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16) by every major, recognized religious group on the earth but the Baptists. You will find it in every catechism that is connected with the origins of the Greek Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church, the Lutheran church, the Anglican church, the Reformed churches, the Pres­byterian church, and the Methodist church.102 This one non-Biblical heresy has probably caused more bloodshed than any other single doctrine wrested from the word of God (2 Peter 3:16) outside of the so-called “mass.” It becomes a means of maintaining a church state (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1969) for sixteen centuries. England h&s, a state church (Anglican), Germany has a state church (Lutheran), France has a state church (Catholic), Spain and Italy have state churches (Catholic), Ethiopia had a state church (Coptic), Greece has a state church (Orthodox), and so did Russia (until 1918). America was the only major country to escape this demoraliz­ing and cancerous plague in the western world, and the Puritan “fathers” had not been here a hundred years before some of them had set up a church state modeled after the Puritan-Reformed pattern of John Calvin (his church state at Geneva, Switzerland); with it they revived an ancient Catholic liturgy: burning “heretics” at the stake.103

Infant sprinkling for admission into a church controlled by a church state guaranteed a number of things: 1. A large membership, because if resident members are threatened with death or excommunication if they don’t bring the babies in, they will bring them in. (If no political threats are made, you simply tell the parents that the baby may go to I hell, or at least “Limbo.”) 2. Families will join the church on the basis of the first birth (physical—not spiritual), thereby guaranteeing, with the passage of time, a packed-out congregation of hell-bound sinners parading around as “Christians.” The poor fools are deceived into thi ing that physical water applied by a physical sinner can produce a sp'r itual birth. 3. Absolute control of the consciences of the members, they will always date their “conversion” at their water baptism, a

since baptism can’t guarantee salvation absolutely to anyone (see above), the sinner never knows whether he is saved or lost as long as he lives. This insures further that no member of the church will ever attempt to win anyone to Christ, for salvation is not going to come about by an adult accepting the finished work of Jesus Christ; it is going to come to pass by unconscious submission of a baby to a “priest” before he can know what redemption is, or even who is throwing water on him, for that matter. Infant baptism (properly, “sprinkling”) thereby becomes a real unifying power within the unregenerate Roman Catholic church for the next sixteen centuries.

The Holy Spirit and the Bible were small factors in the operation. So strong was this delusion upon the world system in which it operated that not even the Reformers (Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther) could com­pletely escape the snares of the deadly Alexandrian Cult.104 The real Bible believers, even during the Reformation, must remain as “splin­ter” groups of “dissenters” and “schismatics” who are classified by Catholics and Reformers alike as “heretics.”106

Having passed through the watery “deeps,” we come now to Constantine (313 A.D.) and the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.). This was the first official “council” anywhere in the history of the church (Acts 15 is never called a “council” anywhere in the New Testament). Nicaea sets the pace for every council to follow. Ignoring the issue of absolute authority (the Bible), the issue of the autonomy of the local church (independency), and the issues that are related to the command­ment to preach the Gospel and win people to Christ (Acts 1:8; 20:20; 2 Cor. 5:20), the council settles down to argue delicate theological points and define them. (“What do you mean by PLENARY?” “What do you mean by VERBAL?” etc.) This will enable the church state in the future to imprison or kill anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the doctri- na* points.” When the martyred church became the imperial church (325 A.D.) and ushered in the Pergamos period of church history (Rev. •12), it had already had nearly a hundred years’ practice in forming Creeds which were as pagan and as irrational as the teachings of the worst heathen before the time of Christ. Not content with this accumu- . trash, the “fathers” (this time “Post-Nicene Fathers”) allow a gK^hoice tidbits to slip into the church: prayers for the dead, prayers

ary, veneration of relics, and Easter bunnies. At Nicaea, pagan converted to papal Rome, and papal Rome turns out to be by Ig, bloodier and more hellish106 of the two (see chapters 13, 14, confe We are tO ^now trees “by their fruits” (Matt. 7:20), we must

«ss that the Roman Catholic church turns out to be the most corrupt

and poisonous plant that ever grew on the surface of the earth: a reli­gious organization whose history would make an anarchist or nihilist blush for shame. The history of the Caesars from 100 B.C. to 325 A.D. would look like a Fellowship “cookout” alongside what took place after the popes seated themselves on Caesar’s vacant throne.107 No torture found in the concentration camps of Germany (Diels, Goering, Eicke, Kramer, Franz, Himmler, Koch, Hoess, and Palitzsch were all Roman Catholics) could not be found in practice by Catholics three hundred years before Adolph Hitler showed up. Hitler, a Catholic (as Metternich, Talleyrand, Jack Kennedy, Castro, Batista, Napoleon, Franco, Ted Kennedy, Charlemagne, Allende, and Bloody Mary), did not get his “swastika” from India (B.C.): it was painted on the entrance of the Catholic school where he was raised.108 There is nothing going on now in the “Archipelago” (Solzhenitsyn, 1977-1980) that was not in vogue three hundred years before Russia became one gigantic prison. With black magic involved in the lives of its members as soon as they were bom, and then black magic performed before their eyes every Sunday morning—as the black-robed priest went through his routine—it is no wonder that the character of this North AFRICAN religion brought forth its characteristic color from the DARK continent.

We call the thousand year reign of this voodoo mother, “THE DARK AGES.”

Infant sprinkling and the “mass” were the keys to Rome’s politi­cal and religious unity. With water splashing from a thousand “lavers,” she subjugated the heathen nations to do her bidding: power politics, excommunication, imprisonment, torture, and murder, “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” of course. Nothing succeeds like godliness and piety.


Easter Bunnies and Christmas Trees

“Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition....Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”

Mark 7:9, 13

The standard work on the life and death of the emperor Constantine is the famous panegyric written by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical His­tory: it is called “The Life of Constantine.” Constantine’s first act of favor toward the churches after his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, near Rome, was to erect a statue of himself in Rome.1 The “favor” that this was supposed to demonstrate to the churches was the fact that in this idol’s hand was a cross. Crosses come in four styles: the St. Andrew’s cross, which was the letter “X” (see Mark of the Beast, 1959); the Egyptian cross, which was the capital letter “T”; an upright Latin cross, which was a regular cross “f”; and the Greek cross, which was a square shaped “ + ”.

This design is an ancient one, for it symbolized cursing and bless­ing among ancient Egyptians, Indians, and Mexicans.2 Rejecting the Bible definitions relative to the sign immediately (Gal. 3:13), all of the Catholics” accepted it as a sign of a “blessing.” Bible rejection nat­urally is the first step in forming proper “Catholic” creedal statements (see Rome: the Great Private Interpreter, 1969).

.. ®ut Constantine’s “cross” was a very peculiar thing.3 It looked e a Greek Rho with a Greek Chi at the bottom of it: thusly

S ch*ef form of this is quite similar to the Egyptian crux ansate, or symbol “~”.4 jn Roman Catholic mythology you are to believe t the Rho and the Chi must refer to Constantine’s “conversion” to l^Us Christ because the two letters given happen to be the first two rs in Xpia-coq (“Christos,” Greek for “Christ,” which means

“anointed”).5 To obtain this ludicrous private interpretation, the Bible had to be rejected at once; for the Bible spoke of four “anointed” ones (Ezek. 28:14, Zech. 4:14), only one of whom was the “Lord’s Christ” (Acts 2:26-27, Luke 2:26). The “Christ” of “Chi-Rho” was very much like the “Teachings of the Twelve” —or, as they say in Christian schools (1980), “the original text” or “the original Greek text.” You pretend a thing is something that it is not: i.e., oranges and apples don’t have seeds or skins. Since the Bible denominated several “lords” (1 Cor. 8:5), and several “gods” (2 Cor. 4:4), and several Jesuses (2 Cor. 11:4), we don’t have to guess about multiple “Christs.” They are given in Matthew 24:24.

Constantine, the Roman emperor, was supposed to have seen this sign in a vision, or something like it,6 during a battle; at that time he heard some UFO occupant from a flying saucer say, “In this sign con­quer” (In Hoc Vinces). Since the signs are for the JEWS (1 Cor. 14:22), because they “require a sign” (1 Cor. 1:22), the first thing for a good “Catholic” to do with this incident is to pretend that Constantine was

a Jew being talked to by an apostle (Mark 16:17) who had the “signs.” The Catholics promptly made this correction in the New Testament

(although they couldn’t vouch for the UFO). If Constantine really did

hear what he said he heard, it brings up the question, “conquer WHAT?” Eusebius, who is writing the original account, fails to answer this question; as a matter of fact, he doesn’t even mention it. To tell the objective truth, he doesn’t even dare to ask it. Constantine pretended that it meant “conquer Maxentius, thereby liberating Rome” (see Castro, Hitler, Lenin, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” etc.). Eusebius calls the sign a “saving symbol”7 and says that Connie had it put on his

spears and shields.

Constantine then proceeded to exempt the clergy from taxes (313), to abolish a few pagan practices that were offensive to Christians (315), to enjoin the observance of Sunday by all unsaved pagans (321), and then (324) to promise to every “convert” to “Christianity” twenty pieces of gold and a white robe. Naturally, there were record-breaking Sun­day school attendances in the next year, and the First Catholic Churc of Rome had a record number of baptisms to report—12,000 a yeap or more than twice as many as Jack Hyles and Jerry Falwell combin

However, Constantine did not get baptized himself. .

The last hours of Constantine are described by Eusebius. Naturey the church historian is prejudiced in his writing to the place of delinu » for Constantine had done him an eternal favor by asking him to PreP s| fifty copies of an African Bible for use in the Roman palace.8 Euse

and his friend Pamphilus went back to North Africa immediately (Eusebius was the bishop of Caesarea) and laid their hands on Origen’s Hexapla’ and his NASV of the New Testament, 5,800 changes from the Received Text of Antioch. Copying the fifth column out of that crit­ical and destructive work, they sent it to Connie with the Apocrypha in it as part of the Old Testament.10 To this day (1980), Origen’s “Bible” remains as the official Catholic Bible of Roman Catholicism. In the twen­tieth century it was published as the American Standard Version (1901), the New American Standard Version (1960), and the New International Version (1978). To encourage sales, the Old Testament Apocrypha was omitted in the modem frauds, although the “eclectic” manuscripts these “eclectic” texts came from (the Eusebian-Origenistic text via Caesarea) contained the scandalous forgeries as part of the inspired Old Testa­ment. 11

With such an honor bestowed upon him, Eusebius had to award kudos and kisses in his biographical work: so, he showered bouquets and bonbons until the “Life of Constantine” looked like a biography of God. Mark it: the first really subjective, prejudiced, lopsided piece of pagan propaganda in church history was written by the first church historian. A sample will suffice to convince the reader that not all of the loonies are in the “bin”:

The blessed Constantine was the only mortal man who continued to reign after his death. He was the only man in history whom God had so rewarded. He was the only monarch who in all his deeds had honored Almighty God and Christ. God made clear to all who do not lack INTELLIGENCE [see chapter 5, note 58] that the soul of Constantine would enjoy an ageless and endless reign.12

Did Constantine believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ? Of course not. He doesn’t mention the name of Jesus Christ one time in his letters to his bishops, nor does he mention Kon his death bed. He doesn’t even profess to have obtained salvation until a week before his death, and then he obtains it by being sprinkled ^water, which he says “confers IMMORTALITY.”13 Constantine ght that water baptism was “the SEAL which gives salvation.” tjnjer be>ng sprinkled he prayed, without using the name of Jesus one e, and then he said that in his own estimation he appeared to have tOr^Sep/ed immortal life.”14 If he did, he was the first man in the his- a<j. ° me human race who ever deserved it, and Eusebius should have tiiat record breaker to his list of “the only man who...etc.” pk en Constantine kicked the bucket, the “baths and the market-

Were closed.*’ and thne^ whn kori i.--- —

walked the streets in gloom.”15 The spearmen and bodyguards threw themselves on the ground tearing their garments and beating their heads while screaming at the top of their lungs.16 People ran around the city wailing and shouting and mourning for the death of their protector and “SAVIOUR.”17

This disgusting and revolting scene could only be equaled in mod­em times by the pagan lamentations that accompanied the death of America’s number one Communist (Michael Luther King, Jr.) or the death of a fornicating dopehead (Elvis Presley) who was “all things to all men that by all means he might damn some.” Eusebius seems to have either mistaken the death of Constantine for the death of Christ, or at least he has tried to write the account to give someone that impres­sion. He seems to have forgotten, if he ever knew it, that the greatest follower of Jesus Christ (who had founded the church in Rome and had written to the Romans) died alone and was buried in an unmarked grave. This apostle (the apostle to the Romans) said that he, himself, was the Christian example that Michael Luther King, Jr.; Elvis Presley; and Constantine were to follow (1 Tim. 1:16). Bible rejection produces some strange “Christians,” doesn’t it?

At any rate, the corpse was deposited in a gold coffin and then placed between twelve coffins representing the twelve apostles18—making Connie the thirteenth apostle: Paul was the thirteenth apostle. So, accord­ing to Eusebius (see The Mark of the Beast, 1959), thirteen coffins were put on a “high place,” and Constantine’s coffin was “ringed with golden candlelight and was a marvel to those who saw it, a marvel such as no man under the sun had ever beheld on earth since the world itself began.”19

So much for the credibility of the first church historian. Constantine’s funeral had evidently put Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 10:5, 16-27) out of business.

During the twenty-four years that Constantine reigned, he never managed to attain the status of a “church father.” In view of the fact that he called himself a “Bishop of Bishops”20—that is, an ARCH- bishop—and in view of the fact that all of the Catholic bishops accepted him as the final authority in religious disputes,21 it is rather strange that “no man called him father.” If he was spiritual enough to teaC theology22 and to call religious councils and to mediate between parties who were disputing about orthodox doctrine, what was defrocked angel? Not even Ignatius, Cyprian, or Polycarp ever had t e exalted spiritual privileges that Constantine had. A “bishop of bishops who cannot qualify to join the ranks of Papias and Irenaeus is a strang I nnAmuk/




Now, the sudden reversal and shift by the Roman emperor from an aggressive policy of persecution to a cooperative spirit of tolerance naturally produced some remarkable changes in the character and con­duct of Christians and Christian assemblies. (Material for the times can be found in the works of Lactantius, Socrates, Sozomenus, Mosheim, Gibbon, Arendi, Milman, Heinichen, Keim, Latourette, et al.) The Roman coliseum was converted from a Super Bowl for gladiatorial combats into a county fair; the temples were converted into church build­ings; the statues of Venus, Apollos, Jupiter, and Aphrodite were replaced with statues of Peter, James, Mary, Joseph, and John; the smoke of heathen sacrifices was replaced with “incense” burned by a Christian “priest”;23 “water baptism into the mysteries” was replaced by baby sprinkling into the church; heathen candles were replaced with Chris­tian candles; and the type of books which were burned at Ephesus (Acts 19:19) were replaced with the North African forgeries of Origen and Eusebius. Schaff innocently refers to the whole operation as “the down­fall of heathenism.”24 It would be more properly called (by someone more exact and demanding in defining Christian practice) “the down­fall of the New Testament church.”

The influx of pagans into the local assemblies at this time was beyond belief. To “go with the tide” now meant to “become a Christian.” Christianity had become “popular” (Luke 16:15). It had never been popular (Acts 5:13) heretofore, at least not in the Biblical brand of it. In comes Constantine’s mamma (Helena) with the original cross that Christ was crucified on.25 She got this while divining for the healing of a sick man.26 Over to Jerusalem goes Constantine and builds a tem­ple inside the city (Heb. 13:12) and pretends that Christ was crucified “inside the gate” (Heb. 13:13). (This temple is called “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre” in 1980.) When Constantine called the Coun­cil of Nicaea together, he did so by virtue of the fact that in pagan Rome die Pontifex Maximus (the emperor) was the final judge and authority in all matters of faith.26 Constantine also called a council in 313 (Octo­ber) over which he presided as the supreme judge of religious matters.

. e New Testament scriptures had nothing to do with the calling of either religious council: it was an established practice before 100 B. C.

e called together another council at Arles (314). At these councils nstantine—unbaptized and counting on a future sprinkling to save pan later—stated that he was called of God to decide Biblical issues . ere diey dealt with correct doctrine28 and that UNITY was the most thaT*'1ant ab°ut New Testament Christianity. It was so important Hi Visions” among Christians (Novatians, Donatists, Montanists,

Paulicians, etc.) were not to be tolerated. In short, the Roman emperor was now ready, willing, and able to exterminate any Bible believing Christian who didn’t believe what a Roman Catholic was supposed to believe.

When the heathen joined the church, they brought their Christmas trees (Jer. 10:3-6) and their Easter bunnies (Acts 12:4) with them. The history of these items is well known.29 Vestal virgins, robed priests, wedding bands, religious processions, panoplies for statues, and prayers for the dead accompany the whole operation.30 With church member­ship made so easy that sprinkling with water upon a profession of faith in “Christianity” entitled the neophyte to join—plus the inducement of the twenty pieces of silver and the new suit (notes 7, 8)—who could keep unsaved pagans out of the local church? If you had to close shop of Sunday (and under Caesar’s decree you had to), why not attend the “church of your choice”? Especially since, in Rome, it was the same one the emperor was a member of.

The Catholic church rapidly became the only church, and when Constantine left town and headed for Istanbul (Byzantium) to rename it after himself (Constantinople), he left the Roman bishop in Rome (330 A.D.) with not only a “splendid residence,” but a “new, Chris­tian Rome. ”31 The expression is from Schaff, and thus a modem church historian (see Eusebius, above) is guilty of propagating one of the gross­est heresies ever taught or suggested in the history of the church: the utterly incredible notion that a city or a town can be a Christian city or a town. From this unfounded notion, Calvin presumed that he could make Geneva a Christian city, and many of the Puritans (1620- 1680) assumed that you could make the Massachusetts Bay Colony into a Christian colony and Salem into a Christian city. Since a little leaven eventually leavens the whole lump, the Catholics, from the time of Augustine on, carried this absurd fantasy to the extreme and actually spoke seriously of Christian “nations.” And as if this weren’t the height of nonsense, the popes carried it one step further and declared that there was a “Holy Roman Empire,” as though an empire could be “holy.

The only holy things on this earth since Acts 2 are the Holy Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the temple of the Holy Ghost which is the believer s body. Any child in Africa, Asia, Europe, or the Americas could have found that out in less than thirty minutes if a Bible believing Christian had been his guide (Rom. 1:2; 1 Cor. 2:13; 3:17).

Gregory Nazianzen (330-390) says that Rome was loaded with trea­sure and became crowned as the “queen” of cities.32 A huge basilica (building program) was created for the Roman bishop, and down he

B 1X1 B

sat clothed in purple and scarlet (Rev. 17) with his crown on his head (Rev. 17) and his scepter in his hand (Luke 4:6), and therein began the “Millennial reign’’ of God’s “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1969). Adultery was pun­ished, concubinage was forbidden, women were given some rights, and marriage of near relatives was restricted.33 Later, with the help of Augustine’s book, The City of God, the populace and members of the local congregations were encouraged to believe that Rome was the New Jerusalem, and that the bishops and priests of the Catholic church were the earthly rulers destined to conquer the world for Jesus Christ (Rev. 6:2; Matt. 13:33; see comments in those commentaries) and reign on thrones (Rev. 20:2-4). The advancement of civil liberties and human rights and all phases of humanistic socialism effectively convinced the Bible rejecting apostates of the times that the kingdom was coming, or that having already come, it was rapidly being “spread” as “His truth is marching on,” etc.

Perhaps the most damaging result of Constantine’s decrees of tol­eration was the effect that they had on Catholic theologians and Bible teachers, for until this time nearly every church father (with the excep­tion of the apostates in North Africa—Origen, Clement, and Dionysius) was what we now call “Pre-millennialist.”34 In early times, the Bible doctrine was called “Chiliasm.” Briefly, Chiliasm was a negative view of human nature expressed by the following beliefs in eschatology (the future);

1. Man in his natural state, or even regenerated by the Holy Spirit, is still so evil in his nature (Luke 11:13; Gal. 1:4; Gen. 6:5) that he is unable to do God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10) with ANY amount of time or resources.

2. Therefore, the thousand year reign of perfect peace, spoken of in both Testaments (Isa. 11:1-12; Joel 2; Amos 9:14; Zech. 14:1-10; Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:30-33; Rev. 20:1 -6), cannot come in upon this earth until the King of this earth, the King of Kings (Rev. 19:16), The Lord Jesus Christ, returns visibly and bodily (Acts 1:11) to set up that kingdom. To do this He will destroy (Dan. 2:44) every form of religious and political government that man has set up on this earth (Zeph. 3:8), and this will be done brutally and without mercy (Joel

This layout of Biblical doctrine was espoused by Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, Victorinus, Methodius; the list of Pre-millennial witnesses, therefore, runs Un r°ken from 120 to 311 A.D. Origen, however, called this major

Paulicians, etc.) were not to be tolerated. In short, the Roman emperor was now ready, willing, and able to exterminate any Bible believing Christian who didn’t believe what a Roman Catholic was supposed to believe.

When the heathen joined the church, they brought their Christmas trees (Jer. 10:3-6) and their Easter bunnies (Acts 12:4) with them. The history of these items is well known.29 Vestal virgins, robed priests, wedding bands, religious processions, panoplies for statues, and prayers for the dead accompany the whole operation.30 With church member­ship made so easy that sprinkling with water upon a profession of faith in “Christianity” entitled the neophyte to join—plus the inducement of the twenty pieces of silver and the new suit (notes 7, 8)—who could keep unsaved pagans out of the local church? If you had to close shop of Sunday (and under Caesar’s decree you had to), why not attend the “church of your choice”? Especially since, in Rome, it was the same one the emperor was a member of.

The Catholic church rapidly became the only church, and when Constantine left town and headed for Istanbul (Byzantium) to rename it after himself (Constantinople), he left the Roman bishop in Rome (330 A.D.) with not only a “splendid residence,” but a “new, Chris­tian Rome.”31 The expression is from Schaff, and thus a modem church historian (see Eusebius, above) is guilty of propagating one of the gross­est heresies ever taught or suggested in the history of the church: the utterly incredible notion that a city or a town can be a Christian city or a town. From this unfounded notion, Calvin presumed that he could make Geneva a Christian city, and many of the Puritans (1620- 1680) assumed that you could make the Massachusetts Bay Colony into a Christian colony and Salem into a Christian city. Since a little leaven eventually leavens the whole lump, the Catholics, from the time of Augustine on, carried this absurd fantasy to the extreme and actually spoke seriously of Christian “nations. ” And as if this weren’t the height of nonsense, the popes carried it one step further and declared that there was a “Holy Roman Empire,” as though an empire could be “holy.

The only holy things on this earth since Acts 2 are the Holy Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the temple of the Holy Ghost which is the believer s body. Any child in Africa, Asia, Europe, or the Americas could have found that out in less than thirty minutes if a Bible believing Christian had been his guide (Rom. 1:2; 1 Cor. 2:13; 3:17).

Gregory Nazianzen (330-390) says that Rome was loaded with trea­sure and became crowned as the “queen” of cities.32 A huge basilica (building program) was created for the Roman bishop, and down he

sat clothed in purple and scarlet (Rev. 17) with his crown on his head (Rev. 17) and his scepter in his hand (Luke 4:6), and therein began the “Millennial reign” of God’s “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1969). Adultery was pun­ished, concubinage was forbidden, women were given some rights, and marriage of near relatives was restricted.33 Later, with the help of Augustine’s book, The City of God, the populace and members of the local congregations were encouraged to believe that Rome was the New Jerusalem, and that the bishops and priests of the Catholic church were the earthly rulers destined to conquer the world for Jesus Christ (Rev. 6:2; Matt. 13:33; see comments in those commentaries) and reign on thrones (Rev. 20:2-4). The advancement of civil liberties and human rights and all phases of humanistic socialism effectively convinced the Bible rejecting apostates of the times that the kingdom was coming, or that having already come, it was rapidly being “spread” as “His truth is marching on,” etc.

Perhaps the most damaging result of Constantine’s decrees of tol­eration was the effect that they had on Catholic theologians and Bible teachers, for until this time nearly every church father (with the excep­tion of the apostates in North Africa—Origen, Clement, and Dionysius) was what we now call “Pre-millennialist.”34 In early times, the Bible doctrine was called “Chiliasm.” Briefly, Chiliasm was a negative view of human nature expressed by the following beliefs in eschatology (the future):

1. Man in his natural state, or even regenerated by the Holy Spirit, is still so evil in his nature (Luke 11:13; Gal. 1:4; Gen. 6:5) that he is unable to do God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10) with ANY amount of time or resources.

2. Therefore, the thousand year reign of perfect peace, spoken of in both Testaments (Isa. 11:1-12; Joel 2; Amos 9:14; Zech. 14:1-10; Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:30-33; Rev. 20:1-6), cannot come in upon this earth until the King of this earth, the King of Kings (Rev. 19:16), The Lord Jesus Christ, returns visibly and bodily (Acts 1:11) to set up that kingdom. To do this He will destroy (Dan. 2:44) every form of religious and political government that man has set up on this earth 2^^ 3 8)’ and this will be done brutally and without mercy (Joel

This layout of Biblical doctrine was espoused by Barnabas, Papias, Ustin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, Victorinus, and Methodius; the list of Pre-millennial witnesses, therefore, runs Un ro^en from 120 to 311 A.D. Origen, however, called this major

Bible truth “a Jewish dream.”35 {Delitzsch, when invited to join the Fundamentalists in 1886, called it “crass literalism.”36) Since Origen moved to Caesarea in Palestine (235) it was quite natural that the bishop of the city (Eusebius) would also reject Chiliasm: ditto Augustine, Calvin, and Jerome.^

The main opposing view to Pre-millennialism, obviously, is POST- millennialism. This view accentuates the essential goodness of human nature, even though its strongest advocate in the ancient church (Augustine) professed to believe in the total depravity of man. POST- millennialism is the positive view (Gen. 3:1) of man; so it is the view adopted by all unsaved atheists, communists, liberals, politicians, Bible rejecting church historians, as well as Bible perverting religious leaders.

Now, we have gone to great length in discussing these matters in a work published first in 1969, called The Sure Word of Prophecy, so it will suffice here to note only that all politicians and religious leaders have to hold out some hope for the human race to get and keep its support. Although this hope may vary from New Deals, Guyana Settlements, Wars on Poverty, and New Foundations to Golden Ages, Thousand Year Reichs, and Utopias, it is always the same false hope: i.e., that man can bring in peace on earth before the Lord returns. It is the per­sistent delusion that no matter what God says about man (Jer. 17:5; Rom. 3:15-25; Gen. 8:21), man is able to bring in an ideal society with an ideal government, without the GOVERNOR (Isa. 9:6). And whether this system is called an oligarchy, a monarchy, a reich, a republic, a soviet, a democracy, a Vatican state, or a union, or whether it be social­ist (Jim Jones was a devout Marxist), fascist, communist, democratic, or Catholic, it is the same speckled bird (Jer. 12:9). It is the man-made substitute for the God-ordained cure (Rev. 11:15; Ps. 2:6).

The Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran church38 treated the Bible doctrine of the Second Coming as a Jewish “opinion,” and the forty- first article of the Anglican Articles drawn up by Cranmer (1553) states that the Bible doctrine of Christ’s earthly reign is a “fable of Jewish dotage.” Augustine had a much more pious way of rejecting the truth, he said simply that the thousand year reign of Christ (Rev. 20:1-6) began at Pentecost so that Christ is now reigning. The Church of Christ (Campbellites) teach the heresy just like that.39 This teaching, calle POST-millennialism, took a bad beating during World War I (191 1918). With one and all looking for the sudden appearance of ‘ peace on earth, good will to men,” the Germans came through Belgium (1914) like a wildcat going through a paper bag. When the dust sett over ten million men had been killed and twenty million wounde , a J

the nations were saddled with a monetary debt ($18,805,919,420) that they haven’t paid back yet, as of 1980.

Christ’s “Millennial reign’’ (if it began at Pentecost) seemed to have a few “bugs’’ in it, if you will pardon the irreverent treatment of the subject. On once occasion, a “Christian’’ was remonstrating with a Bible believer about these kingdom matters and the Christian informed the believer that the devil had already been chained for a thousand years; that is, since the term “a thousand years” didn’t really mean a literal thousand years (see Rev. 20:1-5 and comments in that commentary) that the thousand years began in Acts 1, and the devil had actually been chained for a period of over 1,900 years. To this the believer commented, “Well, he sho do have a long chain, don’t he?” One does not have to be a Greek grammarian to appreciate the theological problem.

Since many of the “brethren” who were Post-millennial had no post left to lean on after World War I—and not even a toothpick to lean on after World War II—they decided that any defection from the truth was better than accepting the truth, so they went back to an old Calvin- istic position: they subscribed to A-millennialism. A-millennialism, in a nutshell, means that Jesus Christ is not about to set up a literal reign on this earth at Jerusalem for one thousand years, now or later, whether you believe in depravity or not. To authenticate the Calvinistic half­measure, the A-millennialists decided that the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5 would have to be a spiritual resurrection, for if they let it stand as a literal bodily resurrection (Rev. 20:5), this would sepa­rate two physical resurrections by a literal period of a thousand years. To pervert this plain Bible truth, the A-millennialists pretended that the “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:5 was the spiritual resurrection of Ephesians 2:1-4. This would place the resurrection in the PAST for the Christians who were reading Revelation 20. And this is exactly how J.G. Machen and Benjamin Warfield endorsed the perversion as “sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 2:18), unwittingly putting themselves into the shoes °f genuine heretics who were turned over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20) by Paul for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor. 5:5). Eighty percent of the men who translated the ASV of 1901 were in those shoes when they *ranslated Philip Schaff, a Post-millennialist who swore that he „ ^eved IN and hoped FOR “one holy Catholic apostolic church...one

and one shepherd,”40 was the head of that committee. Any Roman Eg’olic from Catherine de'Medici and Bloody Mary to Califano (HEW) Schj»fO,Pe (John Paul II) would subscribe to that papal creed.

s creed is the creed of all popes: there has not been one Pre- enn‘al pope in the history of the Catholic church. They all “hope

for” and ‘‘believe in” the religious unity of the entire world under Roman Catholic domination BEFORE the Second Advent of Jesus Christ.

That is the official (nihil obstat) theological belief as stated by Cath­olic theologians in the twentieth century.41 In reality this “unity” had already been prophesied in Revelation 13:1-6 more than two hundred years before there were any “Catholics,” and it will be unity under Satan, as the “one shepherd” (Zech. 11:15, 16).

When the mass of pagan idolaters, all believing in “mankind” and “man is the measure of all things,” came into the local churches, espe­cially those churches in Rome (313-340 A.D.), they brought with them the accumulated trash from four thousand years of pagan idolatry. These “added ingredients” are kneaded into one lump of “apostolic” leaven (Matt. 13:33) that is already fermenting, and now the orthodox “Cath­olic” of the fourth and fifth centuries is faced with:

1. A deified Mother who gave birth to Deity: Semiramis deified as Rhea; Vesta under the name of Venus; Hestia the “queen of heaven” as Sacca; Europa who is called Minerva; Venus who is called Lakshmi; the Elie woman who is called the Lorelei; and, above all, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Rev. 17), called “Mary, the Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 44:19).

2. The Saturnalia was called Ule day, Meni, Mane, or Mani. In came the mistletoe with the boar’s head and the Christmas goose. “Lady Day” shows up with the birthday of Baal on the 25th of December.

3. “Easter” from Astarte and Ishtar, around Bel Day (May 1st, Beltaine); Hindu, Babylonian, and Japanese eggs show up at sacred fes­tivals; dyed and colored eggs from the festivals in China; Venus (Astarte) hatching out from an egg, etc.43

4. The sign of the cross, the rosary, relic worship, idol proces­sions, lamps, and wax candles, prayers for the dead,44 and above all the supreme “PONTIFF,”45 ruler of heaven, earth, and hell—God man­ifest in the flesh on this earth—sitting as absolute sovereign above all jurisdictions and powers, with power to kill,46 uproot, tear down, and destroy, and with power to use armed force to eradicate Bible believ­ing “dissidents.”47

What had begun as a “little flock” (Luke 12:32) of sheep (John 10:1-28) had now become a zoo, and although the “Pontiff had not | yet fully magnified himself to the extent of the things listed under number four above, the lenses were getting lined up to magnify in that direc tion. The “chief shepherd,” the Roman bishop, was rapidly assuryl” I the contours of a Fascist dictator, and we are not surprised to find t es

ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing, declaring later that “every human creature under the rigid necessity of saving his soul must be subject to the Roman Pontiff.' ’48 Modern Catholics have “cooled” this incred­ible blasphemy to the following soup:

1. All unsaved men have God for their Father and Christ for their brother.49

2. But outside of the church, not one is joined to Christ, hut there are “anonymous” Christians who are really “outside” the church; they just never joined the church.50

3. But only through water baptism can one join Christ, and only the Catholic church can mediate Bible truth about water baptism to any­one.51

4. But Mark 16:16 (the “damned”) is not a reference to people who don’t believe on Christ; it is a reference to people who think they ought to join the Catholic church and then DON’T.52

The rabid psychosis of religious megalomaniacs like Pope Boniface often erupts into such blasphemous gibberish as “The Vicar of Jesus Christ is placed in the middle between God and man, on this side of God but beyond man, less than God but greater than man: who judges all but is JUDGED BY NO ONE.”53 And "All Christians therefore

should look upon the pope as God Himself.”54 These same deranged fanatics in America state55 that since the Roman Catholic church is the only true church, she “must demand the right of freedom for herself ALONE,” and no one has a real right to accept any religion save the Catholic church, or to practice any form of divine worship, save that “commanded or sanctioned by the Catholic church.”56 Having taken such a “hard-line” stance against everyone, it is not surprising that when the Soviets ran Cardinal Mindszenty out of Hungary (1949), they set up their own secret police agents as bishops, cardinals, priests, and monastery heads in Hungary.57 One reaps what one sows.

When Mussolini signed his Fascist concordant with the pope (1929), I the concession Musso made was that “whosoever publicly slanders the Catholic religion of the STATE shall be punished with imprisonment rone year”58 (The term “slander” in this case means, say for exam- P e, the entire content of Foxe ’s Book of Martyrs, the entire content 0 at‘can Imperialism in the Twentieth Century, or the entire content 0 the works of Paul Blanshard and Ian Paisley.)

jLfe These delusions of megalomania assumed their present proportion r the Bishop of Rome took the imperial seat, left vacant by ^Onstantine in 330 A.D., and the Catholics have been suffering from

I paranoid hallucination ever since. The reader will take note that

the quotations given above are from the twentieth century: Rome never changes.

Augustine’s funny book, The City of God, states the case clearly for every apostate from Origen to A.T. Robertson. This work took twelve years to write (413-426), and it probably contains more non­Christian, anti-scriptural theology than any work written in that century by a professing Christian. Of this work, Schaff says “it was the most powerful, profound, and fertile production in refutation of heathenism and vindication of Christianity” in the ancient church.59 It was the “noblest work.. .which the GENIUS OF MAN had as yet contributed. ”M This “noble work” states that the thousand year reign of Christ is fig­urative and not literal (chapter 9), exactly as it is stated by modern Cath­olic theologians;61 that Christians swallow Christ’s literal body at the “eucharist” (chapter 20); that the Apocrypha (Esdras, Tobit, Judith) is inspired;62 that a man is saved from the second death (Rev. 20:14) by martyrdom;63 that Adam’s soul died, not his spirit; that the Septuagint, with the Apocrypha, is inspired;64 that the references to the resurrec­tion and restoration of Israel in Hosea 6:2 were fulfilled in 33 A.D.;65

that the resurrected saints who sit in judgment in Revelation 20 are Cath­olic priests and bishops now judging the heathen;66 that Malachi 4 is a reference to the last judgment instead of the Second Advent;67 that Romans 8:29 refers to a present spiritual growth in grace, not a final state at the resurrection;68 and that unsprinkled babies go to hell if they are not “elect” babies.69 Further, the Second Coming of Christ occurs one piece of Christ at a time every Sunday morning, in Catholic churches, until the whole body shows up.70

This is the pagan caricature of the Holy Bible which Augustine gave to mankind and the Catholic church: Augustine is one of their great “doctors.” This is the “fertile, profound, noble genius” ofa man who passed off for fifteen centuries as a Bible believing Christian. He was no more a Bible believing Christian than Hort or Brunner. He believed a number of things taken out of the Bible and threw the rest of the Book in the trash can—every time a verse in it crossed his own philosophical speculations and political ambitions. How do members of the Cut (Schaff, Newman, Bob Jones III, Robert Sumner, Hort, et al.) justify such conduct? Simple: they plead ignorance for the defendant or e se “latitude of opinion” on nonessentials. Every time a Cult member , caught red-handed in sin, he is justified by his fellow Cultists in twentieth century, who say “in those days they didn’t have the ig we now have.” And while they are saying this, they themselves harassing every real Bible believer within five hundred miles by imp

ing doubts in his mind about the absolute authority of the very light that “they didn’t have.”71 They had it; they just turned it out. The mod­em light dimmers bear witness as to whose “children” they are (Matt. 23:30-31). The characteristic of the modern Alexandrian Cult member is not that he HAS ‘‘advanced light.” The characteristic truth of the modem Cultists is that he rejects the light he has and pretends that when God gave it (1611), the men He used didn’t have any light (or not as much light as HE has now) because he had destroyed the light God turned on. That is, he is Augustinian.

When Augustine comes on the scene (354430), the ground has been well-plowed and tilled for him by the ornate Council of Nicaea. This council presumably met to discuss matters of Trinitarian doctrine, but before it met, the leader and caller of the council (Constantine) had been involved in much more practical matters than those of “heterusios,” “homoiousios,” “anomoios,” and “katoousian.”72 You see, by 325 A.D., the main issue in the body of Christ had nothing to do with “substances” and “essences.” The sore point was water baptism (see previous chapter). Constantine’s Easter bunnies and Christmas trees had only made those matters worse. (In 1978 when Jerry Falwell went to confer with The Sword of the Lord brethren, he was shocked to find out that far from “separation” being the big issue—as Faith Magazine and the “Sword’’ would have you to believe—the issue was the author­ity of the King James Bible. It upset Jerry so badly that he went home and inserted comments into his national broadcasts against those who believed the AV to be the word of God.73) When the World Congress of Fundamentalism meets, it goes through cute, little “militant maneuvers” (1970-1980), trying to convince the body of Christ that it is “boldly dealing with THE issues.”74 The ISSUES are not separa­tion or “Neo-Evangelicalism.”’ To tell you the truth, those have never been the issues in America or Europe in four hundred years, nor has the issue since 1600 been “the inspired originals.” Councils don’t ever . * with the real issues. So, in 325 A.D., when Constantine sat down ,n his glorious robes of state to mediate between two groups of dead Orthodox “Fundamentalists,” the real issues were swept under the rug.

I 1- The final and absolute authority for Christian faith and practice. _ 3" What that authority said about Chiliasm (the Second Coming °* Christ.).

I 3. What the final authority said about WATER BAPTISM.”

Or this reason, you will find no statement on items two or three Fu^ d- Cree<^ °f &°b J°nes University from 1929 to 1980, although the n amenta! ist Creed of J. Frank Norris (First Baptist Church, Ft.

Worth, Texas) has a statement in it on BOTH articles.16 There is evi­dently a wide gap right in the middle of the Fundamentalists themselves. There are two kinds of “Fundamentalists.” The first statement in the creed at Bob Jones University refers to a “final authority” that no stu­dent or faculty member of that school has ever seen or read.

Nothing like ducking the issue, is there?

In 314 A.D., the Catholics agreed to allow the sun worshipper Constantine to act as a “go between” between the Catholics and the Donatists.77 At this point, Constantine’s “tolerance” suddenly evapo­rated (it had been going on nicely for one year: 313-314). The trouble was the issue of authority. Constantine found his authority questioned by these people (Donatists) who refused to baptize infants and who held that baptismal regeneration was a doctrine of the devil.78 Constantine could have “kept his cool,” only the Donatists immediately brought up the first and main problem that has been the first and main problem on this earth since Genesis 1:1. Who is in charge? (See The Sure Word of Prophecy, pp. 1-4.) Constantine did the only thing that a good Chris­tian emperor could dp under such circumstances: he began killing Donatists.79

Now, what was an emperor doing presiding over a meeting be­tween local churches? Had the HEW moved in? What business do ordained pastors and elders have accusing each other (1 Cor. 6:1-6) in court, especially in the court of a sun-worshipping pagan politician? Constantine put some of the Donatists to death. He didn’t touch the hair on any “Catholic.” Following “the greatest mortal man who ever lived” (Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, see above), Optaus, the Bishop of Mela at Numidia (Council of 411), wrote a book against them, and then in 377 A.D. the Emperor Gratian deprived the Donatists of all of their churches, prohibiting their assemblies in public and private.80 In 411, at a Council in Carthage, 286 Catholics triumphed over 279 Donatists who were defeated primarily because of Augustine’s influ­ence at court81 and the “fog of verbiage” in his writings (City of God, etc.)—which made him appear as an eloquent intellectual; only the writ­ings of Westcott and Hort (1884) could match Augustine when it came to sophisticated smokescreens. We don’t have to guess why the Donatists lost out if we remember Mr. Lord’s comment on Augustine s in u ence (see chapter 6, note 80). The death sentence was passed on a^ Donatists by Honorius and Theodosius (emperors) if they were cau® rebaptizing any “Catholics.”82 That is, active persecution against peo^ pie who would not accept infant baptism or Catholics baptism with Constantine and continued throughout and after the Counc

By the time Caesar (Constantine) came swishing into the Council of Nicaea in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold and diamonds,83 he had already consorted with his purple and scarlet clad wife (Rev. 17:4), and his hands were already dripping with the blood (Rev. 17:6) of Bible believing Christians. “Hail, Caesar! We, who are about to die, salute thee!”

Nicaea marks the beginning of the Pergamos period. The two main protagonists of that fiasco were Arius and Athanasius. Arius of Alex­andria (256-336), once orthodox, was forced into the Jehovah’s Wit­ness position of the New American Standard Version (John 1:18). Athanasius, also of Alexandria (296-372), raised under Origen, took the ‘‘orthodox position” recommended by John Calvin and the Westminster Confession. Calvin had Servetus (1511-1553) burned at the stake for not subscribing to this Alexandrian position. Observe that Alexandria produced both opponents: both engaged in nonessential matters which would be thrashed out while the council was avoiding the real issues. Members of the Alexandrian Cult in 1980 behave exactly as they did then. The final authority for them is the combined consen­sus of the majority of ‘‘orthodox” scholars: where those findings contradict the AV text, the AV text is abandoned.


The First World Congress of Fundamentalism

“Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;” 1 Timothy 1:5-6

Now, one would think that when Christians sit down at a table to argue out matters such as the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity—one of the greatest mysteries of the Bible—before a pagan sun worshipper, that they would “take heed to their lips” and “look well to their going,” especially with African bishops present (from Egypt) who thought that Mary was a member of the Trinity.1 However, when these plenipoten­tiaries (big wheels) sat down they became ensnared in the most vaporous and theoretical abstractions anyone ever toyed with since Socrates committed suicide. Without settling one major issue then current (the matter of absolute authority, the place of water baptism in salvation, the sprinkling of infants, the independency of the local church, the immi­nent return of Christ), these half-baked, dead-orthodox theologians sat down to fight out Origen’s philosophical propositions which had origi­nated and were fostered in the school of Alexandria.2 Granted that there *ere some mighty and noble Christians present,3 the entire course of e meetlng, the agenda, and the manner in which it was carried out would be worthy of a Democratic convention discussing upralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. As one would say in the ^K^ular, “the whole scene was the pits.”

“*gs 0^ Apost^es Creed,” which took a major place in the proceed- ph- ■ J*25 A.D., had a dubious background. The earliest creed was "Cathr>i fr°m Marceilus and was in Greek: it omitted the magic word

,c> so it was not adopted.4 The canons of the Council of Nicaea

set up principles in hierarchical organization which are anti-Christian and found nowhere in the scriptures.3 Besides the creed, Gelasius says that nine corollaries were attached, the last one being a dogmatic state­ment on Pre-millennarianism.6 This is denied by Myers, who writes for the Catholic Encyclopedia.1 Naturally it would be, since no Catholic pope, priest, nun, bishop, or archbishop was ever Pre-millennial. Mod­em nihil obstat literature of the Catholic church states that there will be no rapture, no restoration of Israel, no Millennium, and no Judgment Seat of Christ.8 Until the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius himself was a Pre-millennialist, and he even included part of the Gospel Imperative in his “creed.”7 Furthermore, Justin, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, Polycarp, Ignatius, Commodian, and Hippolytus were all Pre- millennialists.10 The Council of Nicaea finished off the Pre-millennial truths of the Second Coming of Christ: the corollary was not adopted, and the way was paved for the most distorted and grotesque non-Christian “history” of the first millennium: Augustine’s City of God.

From Augustine (354-430) onward, the Roman Catholic church comes into full view. The first person to misapply Matthew 16 to Rome was the African Cyprian, and this idea was developed in North Africa11—not Syria. Believing that the Roman church was founded on Peter and was destined to bring in “peace on earth to men of good will” (Pope John XXIII’s “Encyclical”), the potency was taken out of the Old Testament by claiming for the Catholic hierarchy the literal prom­ises that God made to the Jews. The Catholic political system was called “The New Israel,” and the stage was set for materialism, syncretism, commingling with the heathen, war, murders, atrocities, and every other pernicious form of the papacy (in the name of “faith” and “the faith”) known today. Warfield states that Augustine was in a “true sense the founder of Roman Catholicism.”12 He was an African.

Carefully avoiding the issue of supreme authority—which was the basic issue at the Triple Alliance (1882-1890), the National Convention (1792-1795), the United Nations (1945-1980), the Hall at Versailles (June 1919), the League of Nations (1919-1933), the National Assem­bly (1789-1791), the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Hanseatic League (1250-1450), the Second Internationale (1914), the Adamic earth (Gen J 2), and the pre-Adamic earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 14:13), the American M ical Association (1960-1980), the Magna Charta (1215), the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806), the Third Reich (1933-1945), the Hague Contej ences (1899-1907), the Schmalkaldic League (1531), the Congress <*| Vienna (1814), the Quadruple Alliance (1818), the National EducatKM Association (1950-1980), the British Parliament (1630-1980),

houses of Congress (1776-1980), the Minutemen, the Weathermen, and the Communist party—the bishops at Nicaea set about to determine whether a Bible believing Christian endorsed ousia, or phusis, with unum in numero, or ens unum in multis. On the other hand, it may have been more scriptural to believe in homoousion rather than monoousion (or toutoousion or heteroousion), but the main point was that hypostatses and triousian were like “proprietas personalis,” which would be an economic trinity or an imminent trinity. That is, if the “consubstanti- ality” of the essence was ‘‘unum in specie,” the whole thing might have been settled with E Pluribus Unum. And if it were settled, what then? If you believed everything the council decided on, you would go to hell like a bullet: the new birth is not conditioned on subscribing to a creed; it is conditioned on receiving a living Saviour (John 1:12-13).

So, while the zealous hairsplitters of Constantine’s assembly played puss-in-the-corner for the benefit of their congregations, which were now stuffed full of Christmas worshipping pagans, the world went on to hell as usual, and the local churches went ‘‘down the tube” into an

Imperial State Church that swallowed them up like jelly beans.

Of the ‘‘creed” which finally issued forth from this misguided interplay of confused minds (the Athanasian Creed), Philip Schaff says

‘‘it was unsurpassed as a masterpiece of logical clearness, rigor, and

precision. ” If there could have been some way to explain the inexhaust­ible depths of a mystery of faith into which the angels desire to look, “this liturgical, theological confession achieves the task.”13 That is, first Philip misapplied a clear verse in his own Bible (1 Peter 1:12), and then he proclaimed that not even the Bible itself was as clear in presenting the truth as the man-made creed; therefore it was superior to the Bible.14 Thus, a man-made, philosophical explanation of the Trinity, drummed up at a church state council, became the supreme authority in all matters of ‘‘faith and practice,” and it was eventually to be enforced with FIRE and SWORD against any Bible believer who differed with it.15 Let not the reader think for a moment that we have

overstated anything. The end product of this Roman-ecumenical-*‘one Mfrherd bit stated that a man could not even be saved from hell unless ^R*held to the Catholic faith. ”16 Any man who doesn’t keep the decrees e c°uncils ‘‘whole and undefiled” will perish in hell. You cannot HL heaven unless you accept the doctrine of the Trinity, as set up ^P-onstantine’s council.17 For this reason, John Calvin (1509-1564)

Christian burned at the stake.18 According to the Athanasian counrj~Atllanasius was a champion of “Catholic orthodoxy” at the

—a sinner is saved by good WORKS.19 Schaff takes the burden

for such a remarkable piece of anti-scriptural blundering off of Athanasius’s shoulders and tells us that the origin of the Athanasian Creed was “veiled in mysterious darkness” and that it was “not so much the work of any one person as a production of the SPIRIT OF THE CHURCH. ”20 Exactly: it was the production of a Bible rejecting whore (Rev. 17:1-8). And if one goes back to the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. and places it alongside the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, he will not fare any better than sailing along with Athanasius. The Creed of 325 was so short (less than a quarter of a page of modern print) it didn’t have time to go into refinements. However, in less than twenty years after it was published, it was revised at Antioch (341 A.D.) with this interesting addenda: “...they are condemned by the Holy CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC church.”21 Quickly (381 A.D.) this was expanded to “...in only one holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church... acknowledging ONE BAPTISM for the remission of sins."22

And there, enthroned in robes of righteousness, sit three of the worst doctrinal errors that ever appeared in a prominent place.

1. All the apostles had been dead for over two hundred years, and not one apostle who ever lived believed in a church state, nor would he have if he had been living at the time that Rome professed to be “apostolic.” The apostles had signs for the Jews (2 Cor. 12:12; Mark 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:22) and were members of a local church separated from the state. To call a religious prostitute “APOSTOLIC” was blasphemy.

2. The “one baptism,” wrested from the context of Ephesians 4:5, could not have been a reference to water under any circumstance; and if it had been, then everyone in Acts 4-28 went to hell because no one there was baptized according to the Jewish formula given at Pentecost (Acts 2:8).

3. Ignatius’s slip of the lip (“Catholic,” see chapter 4, note 40) had at last “arrived” and found its place in the sun by its application to a body of professing Christians, when the word itself was of heathen, philosophical origin and could not be found in one copy of any Greek New Testament manuscript or any ancient New Testament translation taken from any set of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

It is plain to the most prejudiced mind (Catholic) that WATER bap- tism was such a terrific issue before, during, and after the Counci o Nicaea that a perversion of its Biblical nature had to be include i “orthodox creeds” to enforce what a Christian was supposed to be'ieV®, Exactly as we find it today in modern “World Ecumenical ^°unC1Acgj or “World Councils of Fundamentalism,” the burning issues are

tn handle: they don’t come up on the agenda.

In the days of the Nicene fathers, there were three red-hot issues that were keeping the whole empire in an uproar. The first of these, as we noted, was adult water baptism: the doctrinal position of the Donatists and the Montanists was a testimony to the fact that “Catholic orthodoxy” on this matter was now bordering on heresy. The second of these was discipline and purity in the local church: the defection of the Novations and Montanists was proof that “church splits” were rarely over matters of the “Trinity.” The third issue was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ: the Montanists and the theological position of the early church fathers (100-300 A.D.) was proof that “Catholic orthodoxy” in “spreading the kingdom” must have had a few wrinkles in it that needed ironing out.

Nothing was ironed out at Nicaea. The emperor pretended that the divisive element in the church was the variety of beliefs that people held about the Deity of Christ, exactly as the modern apostate in Amer­ica pretends that the trouble in the local churches is due to arguments about separation or Neo-Evangelicalism or Modernism (1900-1980). You will not find any local assembly of shouting, Bible believing Baptists on the North American continent who were ever in danger of any compromise offered by Neo-Evangelicalism or Neo-Orthodoxy. Some twentieth century Sylvester (the “Bishop of Rome,” 325 A.D.) or some Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea, 325 A.D.) is working for PTL (pulling the legs).

Quite naturally the groundwork for the Nicene controversies was laid in Alexandria, Egypt, by our old friend Origen.23 As far back as 230 A.D. he had made remarks about the Lord Jesus being “begot­ten before Genesis 1:1.24 This easily led to the next philosophical speculation: “WHEN before Genesis 1:1?” After the Council of Nicaea, it was recognized by many that Origen was really a heretic, and so the Catholic church of that day wrote him off their list: but he was not excom­municated because of his heresy about pastors (calling them “priests”): n°'^at heresy was orthodox Catholicism. He was not rejected because ts belief in baptismal regeneration: that was orthodox Catholicism.

U ® Was not blackballed because of his belief that Genesis 3 was not no Catholic has to believe that Genesis 3 is literal.25 He was ■^ousted for his belief in salvation by works, nor yet for his belief p e Bible must be critically revised to bring it in line with Socratic out ofath°niC thinking. No, the reason why Origen was finally booted to iine e Catholic Scholar’s Union was because his theology failed want toUP w’th ihe Trinitarian statements begotten at Nicaea. If you V see how far he really differed with them, you might compare

Origen’s Creed (230 A.D.)26 with the official Nicene Creed as printed by the Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea to his diocese, which is given by Athanasius at the close of his Epistle to the Nicaenean Synod.21

Both Creeds state that Jesus Christ was begotten before Genesis 1:1.

This Jehovah’s Witness reading (supposedly Athanasian, not “Arian”) will be found in the NASV, promoted by Bob Jones Univer­sity (John 1:18) and ninety percent of its graduates between I960 and 1980.

Origen had stumbled at the stumbling stone: he thought that “all of God’s decrees had to be eternal ” (see Calvin: 1509-1564), so Psalm 2:7 was made a reference to pre-Genesis times. The words “THIS DAY” never bothered Calvin any more than they bothered Origen. But anyone can see at a glance that once a theologian applies the word “begotten”—a word dealing with physical birth—to eternity, he becomes enmeshed in a philosophical dialectic that would drive Hegel up a wall. Constantine needed conflicting authorities (Arius and Athanasius) among the bishops to keep control over them. What Constantine needed was an official religious body of authorities under him who wanted to enforce their belief; then, if he sided with their reli­gious beliefs, he could enforce his political beliefs: i.e., ME first, last, and always. It was as simple as that. Connie-poo saw, in the abstract theological disputes of Origen’s school—still promoted and idolized by the Bishop of Caesarea (Eusebius)28—a piece of fertile ground for set­ting up a religious hierarchy under a political dictatorship (see Sure Word of Prophecy, pp. 192-193). After all, the main issue was never any­thing but authority to start with. There never has been any other issue in six thousand years of history.

Following the debacle at Nicaea (324 A.D.), many of Origen’s teachings were soundly condemned by Jerome and others: in 544 A.D., fifteen of his propositions were declared to be “heretical.”29 Of the sixth century controversy over Origen and his teachings (see the works by Epiphanius, Palladius, Theodoret, Photius, Hueius, Walch, Neander, Hefele, et al.) and the subsequent dropping of his “stock,” Schatt has this to say, “The condemnation of Origen was a death blow to theo­logical SCIENCE” (1 Tim. 6:20).30 Because of his great “pioneering mind” (Prov. 18:1-2) the most learned and able divine of the church had his teachings perverted by “blind and slavish followers” and other narrow-minded, ignorant people who didn’t appreciate the “great departed.”31 Schaff is more than ready to blame the ignorance of the Catholic church in the Dark Ages for their rejection of Origen s Pla­tonic teaching, but he doesn’t open his mouth about their rejection o

the word of God. In Schaff's mind Origen’s theology is more impor­tant to church history than the Bible. (Philip Schaff is careful never to use scripture when judging any man’s character or teaching at this time.) Schaff, for example, is keenly upset at the narrow-mindedness and bigotry of Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (403), whom he calls "coarse” and "violent,” for trying to destroy the influence of a man "so long departed” (Origen).32

All members (Robertson, Machen, Davis, Hort, Warfield, Rice, et al.) of the Alexandrian Cult (1840-1980) have a horror of someone breaking up the apostolic chain of events that links them to the sacred past, for this would cut them off from being associated with Christian scholarship, and then they could not continue with their devilment, with­out interruption, in the age in which they live. “Slandering the sacred memory of the dead”33 is the charge that all members of the Alexandrian Cult use to the fullest extent in order to justify their sins and sanctify their traditional lying and perverting of the words of God (Matt. 23:24, 30). When Schaff, for example, tells us that Augustine was a theological genius with a deep, bold, and soaring mind,34 "looking DOWN com- mandingly through succeeding centuries,” he is making no reference to anyone in church history who believed the Bible. Augustine could no more find the truth in the word of God on baptism, the ordinances, the local church, the Second Coming, the restoration of Israel, assur­ance of salvation, or soul winning than he could find manna on top of the Sphinx.

The Council of Nicaea ended; it had been a great sideshow. It was the academy award winning play of the summer theater.

Nicaea (meaning “victory”) was in Bithynia about twenty miles from Nicomedia. Here the bishops (each with two elders and three servants) had been assembled. About 318 showed up,35 which is about one sixth of the bishops teaching at that time in the Roman Empire. That is, less than sixteen percent of the church leaders decided what a Bible believing Christian was to believe. In their minds’ eyes they undoubtedly fancied themselves to be walking in the shoes of the apos­tles and elders who met in Acts 15. This is apparent by the addenda on the creed calling their assembly a representative assembly for the oly ‘APOSTOLIC church.” From the fourteenth of June till the twenty-fifth of August these gentlemen did nothing but kill time argu­ing about something that Calvin and Augustine could no more figure out than Judge Rutherford or Pastor Russell.

When "the head of the church” showed up (June 14), he came as a heavenly messenger of God, covered with gold and gems, a

glorious presence full of beauty and majesty [see Ezek. 28], When he reached the golden throne prepared for him, he stopped and sat not down till the bishops gave him THE SIGN.”36

Now, isn’t that a remarkable grand entrance? Who could have con­fused the debut of a Roman politician into a religious convention with the entrance of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:2) into an APOSTOLIC assembly (Acts 15:30)?

“Wrapped in royal purple [Rev. 17:4] with a golden fillet on his head...his flushed face and downcast eyes were reflected back in the gems on his vesture, the SWORD of nations and the SHEPHERD’S CROOK |Zech. 11:17] lay at his side.”37 Was this the good shepherd who “laid down his life for the sheep”?

Being a first rate Liberal politician, Connie spoke with a “gentle voice”38 and gave out with one of the greatest bull-shooting, boot-licking pitches that a con man ever tapped a “mark” wit. Connie-poo said (among other things), “I must thank God...He has shown me this high­est assembly... to see you all gathered here in harmony and one mind."39 (After this he banished some of the brethren and issued an edict to kill anyone who didn’t go by the majority rulings of the council.)40 But on went the toastmaster: “May no malicious enemy rob us of this happi­ness, and after the tyranny of the enemy of Christ [referring to a rebel army officer who had tried to kick him off the throne] is conquered by the redeemer...” When Constantine finally closed this political fiasco, he gave a great banquet on his birthday and loaded all those attending with imperial gifts.41 “The wicked demon who....”42 Connie was setting the pace for Pope Leo (440-461), Pope Gregory (590-604), Pope Urban (1088-1099), Pope Innocent (1161-1216), and Pope John Paul II (1978- ); that is, while you are discussing religious topics, you insert

the fact that so-and-so is a wicked demon because he tried to get YOU I off the throne. It therefore follows that any king, prince, or Christian who doesn’t bow down to the pope (after he gets the throne, which he does) is a “wicked demon, etc.”

Connie winds up his pious fraud with, "Discord in the church O consider more fearful and painful than any other war. Delay not, there fore, my friends, delay not, servants of God; put away all causes QJW strife and loose all knots of discord by the laws of PEACE. 43 Soun s almost like a Charismatic convention or a Vatican Council, doesn 1t Do you know what follows this saintly hypocrisy? MURDER. The ca c ... is in the loaded words, “PUT AWAY ALL CAUSES. In trans a^Ui it means ‘ ‘kill anyone that doesn't go along with it. ” The standard int^.y of setting up a war or a dictatorship has always been, and always *

be, by “good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the sim­ple” (Rom. 16:18). Since simple folk desire peace and unity, they are prone to think positively about such matters (Gen. 3:1). Therefore, no dictator, politician, pope, or religious huckster in this age, or any age, can speak NEGATIVELY of the future, not eVen where he is designing to carry out genocide. Constantine is setting up Bible believers for the kill (Moravians, Arians, Paulicians, Montanists, Donatists, etc.) so that the final authority for the Christian will no longer be the Bible: it will be a conclave of bishops, sitting humbly at the feet of a golden throne on which sits almighty Caesar Augustus: the Emperor of the Romans.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 which initiates the Pergamos church period (Rev. 2:12) marks the end of New Testament Biblical Christi­anity as found in the New Testament, at least from the predominance and effectiveness of that type of Christianity. From here on any assembly taking Biblical paths will have to withstand an Imperial Church State in order to maintain the purity and integrity of its congregation. The fractured splinter groups that explode out from the Mediterranean area in the next century show how “orthodox” Catholics had become, and

God’s judgment on this apostate church in that area (400-600 A.D.) by the barbarian tribes are the best comment we have in history on what the Holy Spirit really thought of councils who were afraid to even discuss the “causes of Christian disunity” (see above) in front of a man who had Christian bishops so cowed they could not even bring up matters of final authority in his presence.

While these bickering theologians (representing less than one sixth of the preaching and teaching bishops) were establishing “orthodoxy,” their local churches were accepting and believing on such things as Eas­ter eggs, wedding rings, religious festivals, candle lighting, robed choirs, prayers for the dead, kissing pieces of wood and clothing, sprinkling holy water in their rooms, pretending they were drinking literal blood, and counting on the city water system to get them to heaven. Every one of these pagan superstitions came about from rejecting the author­ity of the Bible and replacing it with some other authority. The three competing authorities for the word of God which produced this ghastly ®ess are listed in the word of God. They are:

■ 1- Science (1 Tim. 6:20).

I 2- Tradition (Col. 2:8).

I R PhUosoPhy (Col. 2:8).

fori. eJect>on of these passages by Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, Papias, prod301*8’ Augustine, Clement, Constantine, Justin Martyr, and Arius paced the Nicene and post-Nicene situation which eventuated into

an official church state “bible” from Alexandria, Egypt (Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: 382-420), an official Baalite priesthood under a state church, a reigning humanoid, superior to mortal man,44 who claimed to have earned the title that Jesus Christ gave to God the Father (John 17:11) and who claimed the use of armed forces to exterminate Bible believ­ing local assemblies.

“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9; Matt. 13:33).

From Nicaea on, Bloody Mother Whore (Rev. 17:1-8) is in clear view, and although she had no official “pope” until Gregory the Great, all of the accruements and appendages are present when Constantine dismisses the “victory” by the council, with no statement by the coun­cil on how to be saved, with no statement by the council on the nature or duty of the local church, with no statement from the council on the future of the world system, and above all, with no statement on WHAT or WHO decides any of those questions, or any other question, the Council of Nicaea adjourns with the matter of final authority not only unsettled but undiscussed. From henceforth (Constantinople, 381; Antioch, 341) final authority is vested in the councils (see Acts 4:15; 5:27; 6:12; 22:30; 23:20), and so, to this day, the Roman Catholic church places the creeds of these councils on an equal level with inspired scripture.45 The church, then, goes further and insists that inspired, authoritative statements are still coming through the Roman Catholic church since revelation is progressive and growing after the New Testament.46 The motive for doing this is obvious: with two conflict­ing authorities, the Catholic church itself will play God as the final authority. This is where all Satanic Christianity ends and begins (Gen. 3:1). The two authorities for Christian education since 1960 are the AV and the ASV (1901); the three authorities since 1960 are the AV, ASV, and NASV; the four authorities are the AV, ASV, NASV, and NIV. Since all Catholics believe in progressive revelation that is equal to the Bible, all modern apostate Fundamentalists believe that revelation has progressed since 1611 (AV) outside of the AV, and therefore 36,000 corrections of the God-given text are as authoritative as that text: they claim what any Catholic claims for his traditions: that they are the ecll of the Holy Bible. The traditions of Westcott and Hort were repeat by Harry Ironside and W.B. Riley without even checking the stote ments. The traditions of Gregory and Nestle were repeated by and Machen without even referring to the verses being discusse , the propaganda of Kenyon and Tischendorf is still preserved in the w ings of Robert Sumner and Ronald Walker.47 without them even °

„ „nrr,o fmm or what they were dealing I

Birds of a feather flock together.

The Alexandrian text of Rome, conjured up for Constantine by Eusebius,48 is preserved in the RV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, IV, N1V, and every other modern bastard translation (New World, Living Bible, Montgomery, Phillips, Weymouth, Moffatt, New English, Goodspeed, etc.) so that Christian scholars can substitute for the Catholic church as “god.”

Birds of a feather nest together (Matt. 13:32).


The Great Witch Hunt

“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

1 Corinthians 11:19

“Heresy” is a Bible word (AV), and it is first found in connection with Bible believing Christians (Acts 24:14). The idea behind “her­esy” is that someone who professes to believe the Bible is using the Bible to prove or teach something that is not so (1 Cor. 11:19): for example, teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16 (“inspiration”) refers to the original autographs. Heresy differs from infidelity in that infidelity has mainly to do with unbelief in the Bible as one unit. There is, however, really no fine line between the two terms, for the term “infidel” was applied by scores of popes to Bible believing Christians who didn’t believe in sprinkling babies, while the term “heretic” was applied to people like Marcion (d. 160) and Celsus (d. 180), who didn’t believe anything in the Bible that disagreed with pagan philosophy. Everyone at heart is somewhat of an “infidel” in that unbelief is found among Bible believing Christians who refuse to believe Romans 6:6-7 and con­sequently have a terrible time with sin (Rom. 6:11, 14). Unbelief was found in Christians like Machen, Warfield, and Robertson, who threw out five hundred verses of the Old Testament as being literally true OlScause Origen and Augustine threw them out. “Good men” are often a rotten example for each other.

Unbelief” is the damning sin of the human race, according to sus Christ (John 16:9), and degrees of unbelief vary from believing ■ly°d (Deists) while rejecting the entire Bible, to believing in the entire a f e’ ^ut not believing the Bible that anyone can read (Bob Jones, III;

an; McKee; Porter; Martin; Wemp; Yaeger; Anderson; Rice; be- er; et al.). Therefore, when anyone speaks of “heretics,” the term °mes relative and quite subjective. If every Christian was a heretic

who rejected the restoration of Israel (Rom. 11:25-33) or the Millennial reign of Christ (Luke 1:30-34), then A.T. Robertson, Machen, RD. Wilson, Spurgeon, Talmage, Warfield, Kuyper (as well as Calvin, Berkhof, Mauro, Dabney, Gill, Hodge, and Ladd) would be in the same company with Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17).

In this history, “heretical teaching” is a teaching derived by either adding to or taking from (see any edition of the ASV, NASV, or NIV) a verse in the Bible or by severing a verse in the Bible from its context. We presume that the Bible is always right and the “godly” Christian is always wrong whenever he disagrees with it (see the prefaces to any of the Bible Believer’s Commentary series). Our proof that he disagrees with it (while professing to believe it) can be proved in court by a very simple application of grade school logic: if he either adds to the verse or takes from a verse (see any edition of the RV, /1SK, NASV, or NIV) or takes a verse out of the context in which it appears, it is because he doesn’t like it as it stands. A fourth stratagem which is nearly as effective is to “spiritualize” or allegorize (see chapter 5, notes 54-57) a passage so that it has no effect on the reader (Mark 7:2-13). These four “dodges” are the bag and baggage of any infidel or heretic. When­ever they disagree among themselves, or conflict with Bible believing Christians on any point, one of these four methods will always be used to teach something that is not so. A few brief samples will suffice:

1. In order to prove that Acts 2:38 is the “plan of salvation” for Gentiles, one must ignore the audience listening to the discourse (vv. 5, 12, 22, 36), the amount of revealed truth at the time of the discourse (only Genesis to Malachi had been written), the question asked by the crowd (Acts 2:37) before the “plan” was given, and the subsequent revelation (Gal. 2:16; Acts 15:1-20; 10:44-48) which completely nul­lifies Acts 2:38 as a “plan of salvation” for getting anyone anywhere except into a Lake of Fire.

2. In order to prove that Ephesians 4:5 and Romans 6:1-3 refer

to water baptism, a Catholic or Campbellite simply adds one word to both verses, which is found in neither book; as the cookbook says, you add water. ” There is no water in Romans 6 or Ephesians 4 or Galatians

3. J

3. In order to prove that a black-robed, Baalite priesthood of blac magic practitioners is the “infallible pillar and ground of truth (1 3:15), you spiritualize the “gates of hell’’ (see the /iSFor Atew

in Matt. 16:18) and pretend that “gates” are really “powers.

you pretend that the words “my church” mean “Roman church,” and then you pretend that one rock (Petros) is another

(Petra). Fairy stories for the kiddies are not limited to the children’s library.

4. In order to teach evolution as an exact science (knowledge), you change the word “science” to “knowledge” (New ASV, 1 Tim. 6:20). Then you pretend that “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) meant “When God began to create” (Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor), and then you remove “after his kind” (Gen. 1:11), and finally you pretend that the word “day” (Gen. 1:5) in Genesis really means “an indefinite period.” Pretense is a great expedient when it comes to writing your own “bible.”

5. In order to prove the AV (1611) is not the infallible word of God, John R. Rice; Robert Sumner; Wilbur Smith; and Bob Jones, III, add

the words “the original autographs” to 2 Timothy 3:16, although they do not appear in any Greek manuscripts from any ‘ “family” of manu­scripts. Then they pretend that the word “scripture” (context: 2 Tim. 3:15) is a reference to “verbal, plenary inspired originals” or “inspired men” (that is the latest gaff in the act), when it doesn’t mean anything of the kind. Consequently, when Sumner, Rice, Jones, Smith, Warfield, Hymers, and Machen quote 2 Timothy 3:16, they never quote 2 Timo­thy 3:15.

Now, this should suffice to show the reader what our conception of a “heretic” is. When a Christian will add to the Book (Prov. 30:6) or take from it (Rev. 22:19) or pervert it (Jer. 23:36) or refuse to believe it (2 Kings 7:2; John 5:44), at that point he is a heretic. This is not to say that his life constitutes the life of an infidel or a heretic. Chris­tians are guilty of unbelief and heresy at different times for different reasons. But the important thing to note is that no Bible believer would think of persecuting a Christian “heretic” if he found one. Peter, James, John, and Paul don’t waste any time in trying to kill heretics or take them to court or even in getting them arrested. This Biblical fact can­not be emphasized too much, for it is the verdict of history that those who are the most interested in ferreting out Novatians, Hussites, Manichaeans, Nestorians, Ruckmanites, Arnoldists, Darbyites, ^OTrisites, and Petrobrusians (see chapter 6, notes 78-79) are inter- in arresting them, jailing them, torturing them, or killing them. _ must never forget that there is not a case in church history where n ' C Relieving Christian was ever caught actively persecuting a JEW.

Catholics (Hitler, Heydrich, Himmler, Bormann, Eichmann, hav H°ess, Eicke, Diels, Koch, the popes, Loyola, Torquemada) “Gree^en ^nown to persecute Jews, and so have “Protestants” and PubHc , ^rt^°^ox ” Bible believers are something else. To give the T 1 e impression that Bible believing Christians were behind the

TV Holocaust (1978) is a monstrous perversion of the truth. The concentration camp system in Germany (1933-1945) and the concen­tration camp system in Russia (1921-1985) were neither suggested nor set up by anyone who believed the Bible in the High commands or Low commands. Hitler and Himmler were Roman Catholics,1 and Stalin was a candidate for the Eastern Catholic (Russian Orthodox) ministry.

When a Bible believer encounters a “heretic,” his orders are clear (Titus 1:13). His weapons against heretics are not carnal; they are spir­itual (2 Cor. 10: 4; Heb. 4:12). When you find a “Christian” using a real sword2 to suppress “heretics,” you are dealing with a Roman offspring of a religious prostitute (Rev. 17:5). Roman harlots (Rev. 17:5) are not to be confused with Bible believing Christians, not even in “Leb­anon” (Associated Press, 1960-1978). Roman popes sporting two swords before them in their pompous processions and their claims to the power of destroying nations with weapons3 are never to be confused with Bible believers. A bloody murderer is a bloody murderer, whether you call him “Holy Father” or not, and here we are not hurling epithets about for “effect.” The terminology chosen is intended to be an accurate, objective description in dictionary terminology of the nature and char­acter of most of the popes. We do not say “bloody murderer” to impress anyone with emotional feelings: “bloody murderer” (see chapters 13, 14) is a calm, dispassionate, objective description of a bloody murderer. When a man gives one set of his servants4 orders to suppress every religion but Roman Catholicism in one nation (say Spain, Colombia, Argentina, and Italy) and another set of instructions to his servants to “play it cool” in another nation (America and England) and pretend, at least temporarily, that Catholics stand for “human rights” to the extent that “no one has a right to even harass anyone” because of their “reli­gion,”5—while at the same time refusing to arbitrate while a nation is exterminating Jews (Hitler signed a concordat with the Vatican) and Protestants (North Ireland 1960-1978)—we know what to think of his “holiness” and his religion, and we know what to call him (1 Sam. 20:30).

“Holy Father” is hardly the proper appellation to be used in addressing a two-faced, religious hypocrite. , .

Since all cardinals, priests, bishops, and archbishops are in s jection to the pope and must obey him to the last detail when 1

orders—under pain of committing a mortal sin if they don t6—-!* be exceedingly simple for any pope to stop a twenty year war in r^bja in twenty-four hours or to stop the killing of Protestants in » o (1950-1955) in half that time or to allow street preaching in °

Madrid in a quarter of that time. According to history, what do we hear from the popes about these kinds of matters? What do we hear from these noble descendants of Constantine the Great? Why, that’s easy: all we hear is “Peace, love, and UNITY’’ (Dan. 11:21, 24). It is no accident that the popes still occupy the throne that Constantine left vacant when he moved eastward: Connie always was a “peacemaker. ’’

During the life of Augustine (354-430), the barbarian invasions began. They terminated nearly two hundred years of bickering and spec­ulating about what was orthodox and what wasn’t. The vast list of “heretics” drawn up by the Catholic church by the time of Augustine’s death was an appalling thing to behold: Carpocrates, Nestorians, Apollinarians, Appeles, Gnostics, Eutychians, Monarchians, Monothe­lites, Sabellians, Manichaeans, Paulicians, Novatians, Pelagians, Donatists, Monophysites, and so forth. However, the grand word adopted by Catholics for a genuine heretic, after Nicaea, was simply “Arian.”7 If any enemy of the Catholic church showed up (saved or lost), he was called an “Arian.” Since the barbarian tribes were loot­ing churches and killing clergymen, naturally they had to be “Arians,”8 or to put it another way, if anyone was an “Arian,” he was a burning, looting, stealing killer. “Catholics,” of course, wouldn’t think of doing such things!9

In modem times (during the Washington-Vatican Axis: 1945-1960), since Communists were taking church property and imprisoning revolutionaries like Cardinal Mindszenty (Feb. 3, 1949), then anything “anti-Catholic” (say, Bible-believing local assemblies, for example) was “COMMUNIST.” The foundation creed of all good “Catholics” from Nicaea (325 A.D.) to the Second Vatican Council (1765) is that if you are anti-Catholic, you are a God-defying, God-hating, Christ- rejecting “heretic.” That is the true “creed” of the Roman Catholic fascist state.10

11 However, one will observe that Rome’s profession, being what it >s, is usually about as reliable as her practice. While professing to be e great enemy of “Arianism,” Rome produced the first genuine Arian translation of the Bible we have in the modern era (the RV, the ASV,

the NASV): all of these came from the Jesuit Rheims text of 1582. i R true Arian translation shows its theological fangs in Luke 2:33; fej^°thy 3:16; and Acts 4:26. One must never forget that Arius in th Wh° rePresented the “heretics” at Nicaea, certainly believed Uja e,ty °f Christ as much as any Jehovah’s Witness: he just believed Pl 2\SUS Christ was a “lesser” deity {New World Translation, John

)• Any Arian Bible will have the Deity of Christ somewhere in

it (John 1:1; 20:28), but it will also take the Deity of Christ out of it (Matt. 12:6; 1 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 9:5, Luke 2:33; 23:42, see any ASV or NASVor NIV) in order to make him a “lesser” deity (see Phil. 2:1-11 and comments in that commentary).

In spite of the great “victory for orthodoxy” at Nicaea, the “Cath­olic” church adopted Arius’s views, practically, after Constantine’s death; Constantine’s sons went completely over in that direction." The most Arian outfit on this earth outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—who use the Vatican manuscript for their New World Translation—is the Roman Catholic communion, which has managed to reduce the Lord of glory to a piece of bread and a bottle of hooch that is locked up in a box in a building. Again, we overstate nothing: the “tabernacle” in a Catholic church is said to contain the Lord Jesus Christ.12 How this is to be believed in the face of Acts 7:49 is a little mysterious, but in the pagan “mystery religions” no priest is handicapped if he has to lie about his “mysteries.” They are an added attraction; most people like mystery stories (see chapter 5, note 14).

A'etius and Eudoxius were two “heretics” who believed that Christ was of another substance than God the Father. Eunomius was a man who believed that Christ was of a “dissimilar” substance than the Father. Eusebius (as anyone could guess) stood theologically right between Athanasius and Arius at the Council of Nicaea, to demonstrate his most outstanding talent of all—compromise. Eusebius taught that Christ was made of a similar substance as the Father, but his followers divided off into those who thought that the substance was LIKE the Father as to being (Asterius and Eudoxius), while others believed it was similar as to being (Acacius). Sabellius (d. 260) taught a progressive revela­tion of the Trinity: this came to be called Sabellianism. Artemon, Cerinthus, Paul ofSamosata, and Photinus were supposed to have denied Christ’s Deity altogether, while Hermogenes, Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and Victorinus only denied his “personality.” Those who denied Christ’s true humanity were Apelles, Cerdon, Basilides, Colorbastes, Neracleson, Marcus, Marcion, Valentius, Saturninus, Secundus, and many gnostics. Those who denied His essential Deity® were said to be Carpocrates, Acacius, Eunomius, and many gnostics. Felix and Elipandus thought that Jesus was adopted by God at >s baptism and then deserted by God at His crucifixion (see any heretica translation of Luke 23:42: RV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV). Chris, was two distinct persons, according to the Nestorians, if we are to I the “Catholics,” and the Agenoetae denied an intellect to Christ s hu ■ nature, if we are to believe “the Catholics.” Believing the Cat io ‘

in all matters listed above would be like believing whatever Charlie Darwin said about the Origin of the Species (1859).

One can see with a sideways glance that the first two issues which the Catholics tried to settle (and which they deemed to be the crucial ones to be settled) concerned the Deity of Christ and the two natures of Christ. Having settled these issues to their own satisfaction, they began to ferret out every Christian who didn’t accept their conciliar and theo­logical definitions of them. Looking over their agenda ledger again, with peripheral vision, one cannot help but be struck with the singular fact that two subjects were taken out of a Book to argue about, while not one word was said by anyone about the BOOK from which these two subjects were extracted. It is a little like re-examining, carefully, the death of John Kennedy (Nov. 1963) without mentioning Dallas. Did all of the Catholics up to this time (430-500) believe the Bible was the word of God? Did ANY of them believe it? Then why did they have two Bibles that contradicted each other in more than five thousand places in the New Testament? If the Deity of Christ was the big, hot issue for Christians and it was settled “victoriously” at Nicaea, how in the name of Hort did Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (330 A.D.) become accepted AFTER the Council of Nicaea (Jerome, 420) by Bob Jones, John R. Rice, Wilbur Smith, Philip Schaff, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metz­ger, Laird, Harris, Theissen, MacRae, Wuest, and Afman as “Bible manuscripts”? They both attack the Deity of Jesus Christ.'3

With the orthodox Greek text (Textus Receptus) appearing in full form following Nicaea—the Byzantine text of the Greek speaking church in the east14 which was flatly rejected by the Roman church in the west13—who that is orthodox today would go to Rome to find “Athanasian orthodoxy” where it dealt with the Deity of Christ? If the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, Antioch, and Carthage were such great victories for orthodoxy, how is it that at Falwell’s school in Lynchburg and at Pensacola Christian College in Pensacola, Florida (1980), we find the Arian, heretical text recommended that came from Origen in North Africa up to Rome?'6 Doesn’t one feel here that some Christian scholar’s sense of history is a little boggled, if not downright perverted? “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteous- nes»?” (2 Cor. 6:14)

Now, it is at this very time (330-340) that Westcott and Hort gjjBpectured that the orthodox text exalting Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 3:16;

" 5;7-8) was artificially manufactured at Antioch.17 This ridicu- eory is known as the “Lucian recension.”18 It is built around

Uspicious and awkward conjecture that at this very time (during

the life of Augustine, following the Council of Nicaea) a presbyter named Lucian, who had some acquaintance with Latin translations of the Old Testament,19 suddenly brought Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (with associ­ated papyrus) with him to Antioch (or Constantinople), and then by “conflating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with Western manuscripts” (D in particular),20 Lucian manufactured a “Textus Receptus’” that added 536 words in the Gospels to Vaticanus and 839 to Sinaiticus, while sub­tracting 1,048 words from both of them. He then transposed or altered 1,098 words from one (B) and 2,299 from the other (R), thereby producing a corrupt text which dropped out of circulation for twelve hundred years, and when it reappeared (see chapters 17, 18), it brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

In the meantime, according to Westcott and Hort and all of those who took them seriously, the pure text of the Bible became established by Jerome in the Vulgate for 1,080 years, and this pure text accompanied the Dark Ages. Along with this fantastic “excursion into cloudland” (to quote Dean Burgon, 1883), Westcott and Hort required the faculty members at Bob Jones (and Harvard, Colgate, Tennessee Temple, Yale, Westminster, San Francisco Theological Seminary, Wheaton, Columbia, Biola, Princeton, and Berkeley) to believe that two Greek manuscripts, which differ with each other in three thousand places in the Gospels alone, “fell out of style” as soon as they were written (330-340 A.D.) and didn’t appear anywhere except in Jerome’s Vulgate (New Testa- . ment) until the Laodicean period of church history (1880-1990); and when they finally received their place of honor under the sun (due to the artfulness of Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, and Nestle), two world wars broke out, England and America went bankrupt, the Vatican con­verted to Communism, and all national revivals in the United States ceased.

This is what Sumner, Rice, Jones, and Hutson call “conservative scholarship” (1950-1980). We had a name for it in the Army, but I could not repeat it.

It is apparent, then, that the word “heretic” covers a vast spectrum. An orthodox believer who calls priests “father” because they wear long “robes” and pray for a deceased husband to get him out of purgatoiy■ J (Matt. 23:14) might call a Bible believing Christian a “heretic an Bible Christianity “heresy” (Acts 24:14). That is, the Bible s own pointing of the term is a reference to Orthodox Pharisees trying to PreVj.jg people from finding Christ. (Naturally, Philip Schaff never ‘^^.s scripture have any bearing on his use of terms in matters of c urc tory: nor does Newman, Neander, or Latourette.) The word e

(1 Cor. 11:19) is a reference to false teaching by Christians in the local church (1 Cor. 11:19). So, we will use the term throughout this church history in the scriptural sense: i.e., a “heretic” is a Bible believer who distorts, perverts, misappropriates, or misapplies the words of God to teach something that is not compatible with, nor in agreement with, the words of God.

A heretic would change the English text of Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 to prove eternal security. A heretic would alter the English text of Colossians 2:21-23 to prove that Protestant asceticism or Protestant mon­asteries were scriptural. A heretic would alter Colossians 2:17 to prove that the Law (Exodus-Deuteronomy) will never come into effect again. A heretic would spiritualize Ezekiel 40-48 to get rid of some of the details of the Millennial reign of Christ. A heretic would alter the English text of 1 Thessalonians 2:16 to get rid of the restoration of Israel. A heretic would alter the English text of Revelation 22:14 (AV 1611) to make it teach tribulation salvation without works. A heretic would insist that all the saints were “in Christ” before Genesis 1:1. A heretic would take Acts 8:37 out of the Bible because he felt that “it didn’t seem like the rest of the Bible.” A heretic would remove the blood of Christ from

Colossians 1:14 on the grounds that since you could still find some blood in Ephesians 1:7, there wasn’t any sense in “overdoing” it. A heretic would teach the body of Christ began with Paul, when Paul had rela­tives “in Christ” before he was saved (Rom. 16:7) and persecuted the “church which is his body” (1 Cor. 12:13; 10:32; Gal. 1:13) before he was saved. A heretic would make a Jewish SIGN (Exod. 20:10; Neh. 9:14) binding on a Christian (Rom. 13:9) on the grounds that the Jewish signs, under the law (Exod. 1-20), were not done away with at Cal­vary (Matt. 5:17) for the child of God in this age (1 John 3:4).

The biggest heretic of the lot would be an apostate Fundamentalist telling you that since the English text of 1611 doesn’t match letter for letter the English text of 1980 (AV), that the items listed above are not serious. Every item listed above is a perversion of ANY edition of the AV from 1611 till now.

Stephen was accused of heresy (Acts 6:11). Paul was mobbed for wrejy (Acts 21:28). The councils (Acts 6:12; 23:1) were the authority ,n both of the cases cited.

From the New Testament (Matt. 26:59; Mark 13:9) it would appear re*’8’ous council, by scriptural definition, is an ecumenical (Acts for {^at^er'n8 °f heretics who unite and attain a spirit of “one accord” °r the purpose of wiping out THE TRUTH (Acts 5:40). They have Peace, love, and UNITY.” Truth is an afterthought, if a thought at all.

From our study of church history thus far, we have already identi­fied a number of false teachings that are being taught, and we have the names of the men who taught them. However, to label all of the church “fathers” as “false prophets” (the Bogomiles did this),21 and thereby unjustly classify them with unconverted sinners, is going too far. We must recognize that there are two natures in every Christian: an old nature and a new one. The old nature in an educated Christian is con­stantly tempted to usurp the authority of the Bible when it commands certain practices and to usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit in teaching those commandments. Saved people can certainly teach false doctrine. Further, we must remember that the unholy Mother Whore of 600-1500 A.D. was at perfect liberty to dissect the writings of the church fathers at any time and to remove statements from their contexts, forge false documents,22 take statements literally that were figurative,23 and on scores of occasions to simply misquote the “father.”24 Students of Roman Catholic mythology are quite aware of their lengthy history of forgery, falsification of fact, and fraud (The Donation of Constantine, The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, The Council of Orange decrees, the Council of Milvis decrees, Gratian’s citations of Ambrose, the Antwerp edition of Gregory the Great’s works, the Paris edition of a quotation by Cyprian of Carthage, The Bordeaux New Testament 1686, and so forth).25 Too much of a strain on the intellect is required to believe that a church dedicated to maintaining its own authority by any means (fair or foul)26 is capable of honestly handling a Book whose inspired words expose the Satanic nature of that church (Rev. 17:1-8).

Notwithstanding, we must face the truth that among the writings of the church fathers are found the departures from scripture that even­tually become consolidated into an official body of creedal beliefs: the beliefs of orthodox Roman Catholicism. This means that the first real “heretics” in church history were Catholics who became ROMAN Cath­olics even before the Council of Nicaea. Although Augustine from North Africa is generally recognized as the first real “Roman Catholic and the definer of Roman Catholic doctrine,27 we must never forget that the Roman church was a North African church to start with, for she received her priests, Mariolatry, infant baptism, purgatorial teaching, black magic, and her “orthodoxy” from Alexandria in Egypt. The ortho­dox champion at Nicaea (Athanasius) was the bishop of Alexan na. I

By way of this route the Alexandrian Cult took over the leaders ip of the “catholic” church. With African ideas about asceticism ( chapter 11, notes 3-10) incorporated into “the faith,” African trus black magic, and African ideas about Bible manuscripts (see notes

the Roman church of post-Constantine times was, to all practical purposes, the First African Church of Rome. Heretics can include Cath­olic and Orthodox, as well as Gnostic and Heterodox. An African Catholic church will eventually have to have an African “pope,” but since neither popes nor African Catholics (Ps. 16:4; Matt. 23:15) have anything to do with New Testament Christianity, there is not much point in referring to either of them as “scriptural” realities. While the Catholics were raging about “heretics” out in the pasture, they let the following beasts through the bam door:

1. Tychonius’s Key to the Scriptures, written by a Donatist,28 was adopted by Augustine, but Augustine was in favor of killing Donatists because they were “heretics.”29

2. Augustine figured on a Post-millennial Second Coming of Christ in the year 1000 A.D., and none of his Catholic friends raised an eye­brow about his “date setting.”30

3. The first resurrection was spiritual only.31

4. The Roman church was the fulfillment of Isaiah 35.32

5. Some sins are mortal and others are “venial.”33

6. Infant baptism—regeneration by sprinkling—was a New Tes­tament doctrine.34

7. Susanna was a real person, and therefore she should be included in the book of Daniel.35

8. It is not lawful to baptize36 anyone unless a bishop is present.37

9. Virginity was a condition of salvation (Hiercas of Leontopolis, in Egypt).38

10. One could reject all of the Gospels except Matthew (Cerinthus).39

11. Origen’s fifth column from the Hexapla (which he wrote him­self) was accepted as the B.C. “Septuagint.”40

12. Marriage was prohibited (Encratites and Satuminus).41 Observe that both of these men, as well as Marcion, are included in the list of

heretics,” according to Catholic and Reformed historians. How does one explain clerical celibacy adopted by priests and bishops as scrip­tural when the men who taught it were considered to be anti-scriptural heretics,” deserving DEATH?42

3. Efforts were made to incorporate images into the churches and e lord’s Supper into an African sacrifice.43

' Opponents of the decrees of church councils are to be cursed.44 “co An infant becomes a Christian and “joins Christ” through a sacranient. ”43

can beCre’ ^en’ *S Wltnessed a trend or principle in church history which applied throughout: church leaders and theologians can absorb

and condone practical heresy and unscriptural dogmas through the churches and schools while they are fighting heresies in councils and “standing for the faith” in “congresses. ” Here the Pauline Obsession (see introduction, notes 4-6) comes into play. When the written work or any man matches Paul’s writings in quantity or subject matter, he takes for granted that he himself is like Paul, for he pictures Paul only as a polemicist or an apologist. While the theologian himself is spend­ing his time fighting “false teaching,” the main business of preaching the Bible and winning souls is neglected. The results? Practical heresy which leads to doctrinal heresy. The progress is interesting to observe:

1. Orthodox Catholics continually complained about the heretical asceticism found in the Gnostic and Manichaean sects, yet Origen was a violent ascetic (he castrated himself), and he was accepted as a guiding light by the champions of orthodoxy until sixty years after the Council of Nicaea.46

2. Origen’s main teachings were accepted until the time of Jerome (340-420). In the times of Justinian (483-565), he was pronounced a heretic and all of his writings were condemned. However, his teaching on Chiliasm (A-millennial) was retained by all Presbyterians and Reform­ers as “orthodox.”47

3. Novatus, arraigned on charges of murdering an unborn child, developed a heresy (Novatianism), yet his followers appear as Bible believing CATHARI five hundred years later—-the only really ortho­dox group left inside the Catholic church in the Dark Ages.48

4. Tychonius (see above), branded as a schismatic under the label of Donatist, had his teachings endorsed by Augustine while that worthy gentleman was cursing Donatists at the Council of Carthage.49

5. The radical Montanists, ostracized by all “catholic” parties, opposed the episcopal hierarchy and championed the “priesthood of every believer. ”50 Constantine issued a decree that they were to be killed I on sight.51 Was Constantine an “orthodox” Christian?

Now, this insoluble schismatic melee becomes more snarled in pro* j portion to its examination. According to Schafif, “we seek in vain among j them” for the evangelical doctrines of the exclusive authority scripture, justification by faith alone, and the universal priesth ® 1 the laity.52 Note that Philip purposely overlooks the MontanistsWK believers like Jovinian and Vigilantius, exactly as Jerome over them; or, more properly, having trampled them down into e orne_ Jerome made it impossible for Philip Schaff to find them. Jovinian times Joviniah) was such a “heretic” that it took two councl? vjnjan Him nut of business (Rome, 390 A.D., and Milan, 395 A.D.)- I

taught regeneration by the Holy Spirit: not water. He also taught eter­nal security and that all baptized believers constituted the priesthood. He denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and said that “monkery” was nonsense.53 Vigilantius (sometimes Vigelantus or Vigilantus), around 395 A.D., was rebuking the worshippers of martyrs and relics; he cas­tigated monasteries, vows of celibacy,54 and vows of poverty. Of the Roman Catholic “way of orthodoxy,” he said, “To defend religion by bloodshed, torture, and crime is not to defend it but to pollute and profane it.”55 Jerome considered Vigilantius and Jovinian to be two of the deadliest enemies the Catholic faith ever had. He considered them to be more heretical than Origen. Aetius (355 A.D.) was of the same mind as Vigilantius and Jovinian, and Helvidius was another “here­tic.” Helvidius (380) went around denying the perpetual virginity of Mary56 (although the ASV and the New ASV went to some length to preserve that Catholic doctrine in their dissection of Matt. 1: 25). Aerius assailed nunnery and prayers for the dead, and he insisted that only an ordained elder was a bishop.57

When the Council of Nicaea had accomplished its dirty work, it had an alibi to get rid of two groups of Bible believers. The first of these was a group of second and third century Puritans called Novations, who were too Trinitarian for the council—that is, they made too great a distinction between the persons in the Godhead. The second of these groups was the Paulianists (whose later adherents were called Paulicians), who were guilty of being “semi-Arian’’—that is, they were halfway between Servetus (1511-1533) and John Calvin (1509-1564). They were also guilty of another terrible heresy: these dissenters bap­tized all who joined their assemblies, and they baptized by immersion according to the formula found in Matthew 28:19-20, not Acts 2:38.58 Among these dissidents (“heretics” by Catholic standards) were the Armenians (350 A.D.) with whom Aerius (see above) was connected. Whereas these Puritan groups had begun defection only by finding fault with the moral lives of the Roman bishops and elders (Novatus), they d, with the passage of time, come to find fault with Catholic adult •^ptism (Donatists) and then Catholic infant baptism (Manichaeans) and wh°le godless, depraved, hellish, Catholic mess: the vation'P.0^ ^ar^’ veneration of relics, celibacy as a means of sal-

n, Eucharists” that were sacrifices, baptismal regeneration, beads, H«~s’ Christmas trees, images, candles, prayers for the dead, pur- “uni1?’ rest 8arhage. The only ones who kept the

severalCaith once delivered to the saints”—delivered hmes by Satan—were those who went along with Rome and

stayed in imperial favor with a church state setup; the rest of them went back to the Bible and consequently back to the chopping block, the whip, the dagger, the stone quarry, and into exile. That is to say, right back where they were before Constantine faked his conversion and hitched the church (Pergamos—much marriage) up to a pagan sun-god in the “holy sacrament” of marriage (Rev. 2:12). I

Now, this brings the student of history to a face-off with another HB

great truth, which he must grasp and then cling to for the remainder < of his studies. This truth is that a real Christian witness or a real Bible I

believer is more apt to be found on a street comer or in a jail than at a “synod” or a “convention.” The real Bible believing people through- out church history, up until now, were always more likely to be found I

in coliseums (the center of the coliseum, you understand: on the “ground ■■■

floor”) or torture chambers than in council rooms and imperial “palaces” (Acts 24; 26; 2 Tim. 4): he was in chains both times. Most I

soul winning, Bible believing Christians are too busy serving God to HHf

ever get caught up by science and philosophy and plunged into theo- logical heresies. Their field is PRACTICAL theology, not systematic I

or dogmatic theology (Shedd. Chafer, Berkhof, Brunner, Boettner, BHI

Tillich, Warfield, Whale, Williams, Ramm, Kerr, Lawson, Anselm, Thiessen, Harnack, Hodge, Neve, Abelard, Stevens, et al.). I

As we have noted, from 68 A.D. until 313 A.D., the ten great anti- ■■■

Christian persecutions had ravaged the Mediterranean shores. This should be kept in mind when any attempt is made to find real New Testament local churches and real “apostolic witnesses" following the ■Vi

destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.). These persecutions lay in the realm '

of real threats to the home, family, and the life of the child of God. They were not merely dialectic sophistries presented by quick-witted theological opponents such as the Nicene breed. The persecutions formed a gruesome setting of “opportunity" for the Christian to put his theol- j

ogy into play, so to speak, to see if it was as infallible and as unimpeached as it sounded to the ear.

Historians have noted how the mark of the witnesses in the Pre

Nicene period was the peculiar zeal for martyrdom, in keeping w ■■■

the spirit of the times. The fact is that the expectation of the ‘mrn J |

return of Christ dwindled after the edicts of Constantine (313 •

in no way proves that the Pre-Nicene fathers were deluded in J ■w negative “world view of their tunes. They proved to be fajry J correct by what actually took place following Augustine s tabulou^ to tale about the “City of God." Augustine's City oj God had cea pHlB

......................... ” rnanv years before Augustine wrote.

A.D. it had become “the king’s chapel’’ (Amos 7:13). Furthermore, we cannot dismiss the Chiliastic belief of the Pre-Nicene Christians,59 for it inspired the greatest bravery in the face of actual persecution, and it was the driving and sustaining Bible truth for those who were actually witnessing during the persecutions, not sitting around arguing about hoosian, ad hooousia, and homo-homo-homey.

From 70 A.D. to 440 A.D. (Pope Leo I), many a Bible believer had “kept the faith once delivered to the saints” by the writers of the New Testament. There has always been and always will be a “remnant according to grace” while the leavening process (Evangelism, Educa­tion, Culture, Apostasy) is taking place.

The Gospel was propagated in these days chiefly by living, preaching, and personal dealing. The rapid expansion of Christianity in those first two centuries was due to four causes: zeal, pure morals, compact local church organization, and expectancy of the Second Com­ing of Christ. DePressence says that many Christians without any special calling “watch for opportunities...they find their way into cities...into the armies...they call the people together and harangue them with FANATICAL GESTURES. ”60 Observe how unbecoming this description is compared with the stately, glittering sociability of the Bible teachers at the “Council of Nicaea.”

The Christian of 70-325 A.D. found a mission field at his front door. He witnessed (Acts 1). Captive soldiers carried the gospel to King Shapur of Persia; consequently there was a Persian bishop present at Nicaea.61 A bishop near Amasea in Pontus, called “Asterius,” preached sermons which Broadus says could be preached today.62 Fifty sermons are ascribed to a man named Macarius: he was an abbot in a convent in Egypt. His sermons were highly esteemed by the Pietists of the six­teenth century.63 Ulfilas, the “Apostle to the Goths,” made the first translation of the Textus Receptus into a barbarian tongue64 and thereby became the first author in the Teutonic language. Since Ulfilas’s trans­ition was substantially the Syrian text of the Antiochan Church (King ontes 1611, AV), he was branded immediately as an “Arian” by the ®™°hcs, who then proceeded to claim that all of the barbarians who ■Mated,the city of Rome were “Arians.” (Proof that Ulfilas was an Ne nan Was the fact that he had one ASV and NASV reading in his estament at 1 Tim. 3:16, which naturally came from manuscripts aU o^ri^ ^at Origen corrupted: see chapter 4, notes 65, 66). Calling and’ e ^ar^ar*an tribes by the title of “Arian” is quite remarkable "'ho^alfh amus'ng' lmag>ne 100,000 to 500,000 half-naked horsemen

| eheved in the Virgin Birth, the crucifixion, the bodily resur­

rection, the Second Coming, and the Deity of Christ, but didn’t quite grasp the “truth” that the word “begotten” (Ps. 2:7) could refer to eternity, called “Arian.” Surely Rome could have welcomed them as “militant” Christians.

Preaching occurred at every place where Christians gathered, and it was not at all confined to Sunday services. When services were held, the preacher usually sat and the congregation stood. The sermons were fifteen minutes long in most cases, according to Dargan, and never longer than an hour.66 In spite of the councils, theological debates, strife, sedi­tion, and “catholic” heresies, the Bible believers maintained a powerful Christian witness for nearly three hundred years. The martyrs preserved the treasure of evangelical doctrines without knowing themselves all that it contained. They esteemed the Holy Bible more highly than their own lives. Where the apologists brought their opponents to the issue of correct philosophical and theological interpretations, the witnesses brought their opponents face to face with the issue of personal account­ability to God for their sins.67 If “apologists” (someone writing a treatise in defense of Christianity) felt compelled to define “Christology,” the witnesses were compelled to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ was living and returning to judge sinners (Acts 17:31).

The cross-examination of a certain Phileas before Culcian, during

the reign of Diocletian, is an example of a powerful New Testament,

apostolic witness.68 The passion of Theodotus69 demonstrates the prac­

tical application of a living theology far better than volumes of Nicene hot air on Christological subjects. There is certainly something in the knowledge of God (“theology”) of Sanctus, Blandina, and others that should have a place in determining who is “orthodox” and who is a “heretic.” Though unrecognized by historians for their academic attain­ments, the street preachers of 68-313 A.D. were theologians: they had to be. The personal worker who led Justin Martyr to Christ had his number even before that Campbellite got saved. He said to Justin, Yw are a sophist, but have never tried to act. ”70 One can imagine how this must have stung the young intellectual who was about to become a ca -j

olic” theologian and teach baptismal regeneration.

Personal witnessing was a dangerous business; DePressence te us that idol making was the largest industry in the Roman Empire a the most lucrative. Workmen who became converted had to just like a Christian would have to give up his job today it ^er working in a distillery when he got saved. The absence of a wO was noticed immediately. A real Christian was marked by his spe ivhirh lacked the constant and colloquial references to the go s.

was also marked by his refusal to participate in heathen worship. In every persecution against the truth, “we discover the hands of the PRIEST”71 exactly as any Bible believer should have expected if he had believed the New Testament accounts (Acts 14:13; Mark 15:31).

The acts of Tarchus, Progus, and Andronicus show an unaltered witness from that of Simon Peter.72 Alban, the first English martyr, converted the executioner who whipped him at the stake.73 Accompa­nied by fire, rack, scourges, pincers, clubs, screws, ropes, pulleys, and boiling oil, the New Testament local churches kept right on witnessing and witnessing for Christ until Constantine saw that his only hope of controlling his pagan subjects was to split the churches over a theological argument that had nothing to do with the Gospel or the conversion of souls and then to absorb the “winners” of this dispute into paganism, by professing to believe what they believed (Ezra 4:2). A heretic, from Nicaea on, was in most cases a Bible-believing Christian who would not be absorbed.

Constantine used the Satanic nomenclature74 for these believers—a

SECT (Acts 28:22). After saying that heresy was “altogether impossible, or at any rate most difficult to define,”'15 Augustine decided that those who taught against infant baptism were heretics and should be killed. It is a good thing for Augustine and his Catholic “brethren” that the Novatians and Donatists had more Christian grace than they. Schaff, covering up for his own fellow heretics, tells us that if Augustine had just seen, ahead of his time, the crusades against the Albigenses and the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition (see chapters 13, 14), he would have retracted his dangerous opinions about cursing heretics.76 We doubt that. A man who would consign non-elect babies to hell and limit the election of sinners to babies sprinkled in the Roman Catholic church has a much stronger stomach than Philip imagines.77

®ut now it is time to look at some real heresies. For a change, instead of imagining that “heresy” consists of not lining up with what a Catholic council thought about the Trinity, let us examine “the real McCoy”;

t is, the heresies that were accepted by orthodox and heterodox Cath- lc^ teachings that clearly distort and pervert the Book from which e hristian professed to have gotten his beliefs.

*s a l’st °f “popes,” which is still printed in every Year Book bein manac *n 1980, just as though it were a list of real people. It with a “Linus” who was supposed to have followed Simon Peter, folio 6 'S f°l'owe<l by someone named Cletus; then Clemens, who is called •* ^varistus, Alexander I, and Sixtus; then some character Telesphorus” shows up. This Disneyland succession of “vicars”

goes by title of “pope.” In Schaff s Church History78 the roll call runs through twenty-five more names before good old Sylvester sits down on the throne of Rome, replacing Connie the Great.

After running through Jaffe, Wattenbach, Artung, Lipsius, Hort, Duchesne, Harnack, and Waitz, Schaff tells us that the oldest links in this chain of Roman “bishops” are veiled in “impenetrable darkness.”79 (It is kind of like reading a modern biology textbook on “the origin of life of this planet.”) We could have guessed the situation without being told. Going from Peter to Sylvester is like going from Paul to Rasputin. Since Peter was an apostle and not a pastor of a local church (“bishop,” 1 Tim. 3:1-6), the early church fathers never reckon Peter among the bishops of any church—let alone Rome. Peter was an “elder” (1 Peter 5:1-4), but spent his life as a traveling evangelist.

Where then does this non-Biblical, anti-Christian line of names come from? Well, the names “Linus” and “Clement” have been extracted from 2 Timothy 4:21 and Philippians 4:3 by some anonymous play­boy. Overlooking the fact that Linus and Clement were the friends of the apostle Paul, who went to Rome (not the apostle Peter, who went to Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13), the two names are inserted as coyly as a Valentine dropped into a mailbox. The next few names after Linus and Clement are invented by Irenaeus (130-202) and are recorded in his work “Against Heresies.”80 This fabricated apostolic line was supposed to be a list of real “popes” down to his time (177 A.D.). Irenaeus is zealous to tell us that by this make-believe “line, the ecclesiastical tra­dition from the apostles” and “the preaching of the truth have come down to US.”81 If Colossians 2:8 is laid alongside this remarkable rumor, one is constrained to ask, “Who is US?” Everything about the “preaching of the truth” that Irenaeus needed to know and everything about apostolic tradition that he needed to know (2 Thess. 3:6) was one the table in front of him in a Book which he himself quoted more than 1,800 times. Irenaeus’s extra-canonical, extracurricular specula-'.; tions, outside of the light God had given him (Ps. 119:105), had evidently bogged him down in “impenetrable darkness.” It must have been a mud hole in a swamp. Lange carries the Roman line of “papas from Linus A.D.) down to Alexander (supposedly 109-119 A.D.J- The historians Lipsius and Hamack follow the lists given by Hegesippu and Eusebius. Several Bible facts are militant against any Christia believing any of the foolishness listed above:

1. There are no popes in the New Testament.

2. There are no apostolic signs after the apostles are dea

3. There are no apostolic successors to James the apost e

4. Only those converted under the ministry of an apostle have the “signs” (2 Cor. 12:12; Mark 16:17), and they can pass none of these signs along to their converts (Acts 8:19-24).

5. Peter was never in Rome because it was virgin territory for the Gospel when Paul went there in 62 A.D. (Rom. 15:20-21).

6. Paul wrote to the Romans, not Peter.

7. Peter’s bones have been found in Jerusalem, not Rome.*1

8. The idea of an “apostolic succession” from Jerusalem to Rome, to a believing reader of Matthew 27; John 19; Acts 12; 2 Timothy 4; and Revelation 17, is just too comical for words.

Some faithless church historians have agreed in collusion to pass on a vicious fable with such force and persistence that to this day there are over ninety million people who think that a “pope” is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on this earth. A pope is no more a “Vicar of Jesus Christ” than Adolph Hitler or Ho Chi Minh.

Strangely enough, the heretic hunters seem to have a terrible time finding obvious cases of disagreement between Catholic teaching and scriptural teaching, while they have no trouble finding all sorts of anti- Catholic “heretics” who disagree on matters so obtuse and philosophical that the devil himself would have a hard time figuring out what was orthodox and what wasn’t. To the modern, apostate Fundamentalist, for example, a “heretic” is a Bible believer who believes that the Bible by which he was saved is the final, infallible authority of God Almighty. In some quarters (1970-1980) this heretic is called “a Ruckmanite.” To prove that this is a dangerous heresy, a system has been constructed by apostate Fundamentalists which would absolutely defy the wildest imagination of the most reckless and undisciplined mind. The system teaches that “only the originals were inspired” (although there isn’t one verse in either Testament that says that), that attacks on the Virgin Birth (Luke 2:33) and the Deity of Christ (1 Tim. 3:16) are to be over­looked if either fundamental is found somewhere else in the scriptures, at attacks on salvation by grace (Acts 8:37; Luke 23:42) have nothing do with sound or false doctrine but are matters of “choice of readings” °r preferences”),83 and that since you can find the “fundamentals ar somew^ere *n Alexandrian manuscripts, that these forgeries

• ’ even when they alter the God-given text in eight thousand

36 000° New Testament. On the basis of this absurd “scholarship,” n- ’ . c^anges were made in the NIV and the NASV from the Autho-

text of the Protestant Reformation.

church burning” was a favorite pastime of the Roman Catholic Or a thousand years, and to this day she officially believes (in

spite of the propaganda put out by CBS, NBC, ABC, the Associated Press, and the United News Service) that all Bible believing Baptists are heretics. Furthermore, she confesses that they are damned84 and deserve to be killed by the one “true” church that Jesus “founded.”85 The same pope (any pope between 1900-1990) who spouts off about “absolute tolerance” for all religions in America and England is the same rascal who backs up absolute intolerance of every religion but Catholicism in Spain, Ireland, and South America.85 The cardinals and archbishops in America are taught to pretend that they are for “separa­tion of church and state” while their fellow-members and kinfolk in

Ireland and Spain are taught that no church has a right to exist in any state but the Roman Catholic church.87 Catholic priests and bishops are for “religious liberty” like Jewish rabbis are for blood pudding and pork chops.

Heretic hunting passed over to the church state religions of the Ref­ormation (Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, etc.) so that eventually anyone who didn’t believe in infant baptism was a “heretic.”89 Thus, those who clearly and plainly and openly violated the New Testament teaching —where the passages were plain—passed off as orthodox Christians, while those who differed on obscure Trinitarian formulas (Novatians, Manichaeans, Arians, Donatists, Sabellians, etc.) were labeled “here­

tics.” None of the following “heretics” accepted INFANT BAPTISM: Waldenses,90 Albigenses, Paterines, Vaudois, Huguenots, Piphles, Bap­tists, Anabaptists, Donatists, Bogomiles, Bulgarians, Petrobrusians,91

Pelagians, Henricians, Tisserands, or Paulicians.

Did the local New Testament church practice INFANT BAPTISM?

This orientation should clear the ground for any honest man who still believes in the authority of the New Testament. If a church his­tory, for example, was written by a man who was tied to a communion that practiced infant baptism (say Fisher, Drummond, LaGarde, Dollin­ger, Neander, Schaff, et al.), how objective do you suppose he would be in presenting his material? How could he deal with the doctrinal truth, objectively or neutrally, when his position was false to start with? How could he state the truth without openly admitting that he was a Bible rejecting heretic HIMSELF where the New Testament crossed his reli­


This one matter alone will account for much of the muddled non sense that one reads in such histories as Philip Schaff s. Infant baptism, as a means of regeneration, is behind so much false reporting and a interpretation in church history that the matter had better be dealt wit ooenly. Although the Campbellites (1800-1940) who followed Alexanae

Campbell (1788-1866) back to Rome would not immerse infants, still they insisted upon saying that John 3:5; Romans 6:1-4; and Ephesians 4:1-6 were references to water baptism: the word “water” occurs nowhere in Ephesians or Romans. Since Schaff, the church historian, was an evolutionary theologian (Post-millennial), his attitude toward much of the corruption that came into the church from 200-400 A.D. is “back in those times, so forth and so on,” or “for the age in which they lived no one could expect such and such,” or “in those early days men did not have the advantage of, etc. ” It would seem that ignorance is a real “friend in time of need” when it comes to rejection of Biblical truth (Rom. 11:25), despite the specific Biblical warnings to guard against it (1 Peter 1:14; 3:5, 8; 1 Thess. 4:13).

Now, a Bible believer can understand how things not covered or mentioned specifically in the New Testament could be confusing to a Christian in any period; church buildings, for example, are mentioned nowhere in the New Testament, neither are they forbidden. There are no Sunday schools in the New Testament, and (to be thorough about the matters) there are no schools of any kind mentioned but one school, conducted by an unsaved, heathen philosopher (see Acts 19:9 and com­ments in that commentary). Adjustments had to be made even in the first century (Acts 6:1-6) to meet unique situations arising that were not specifically covered in the scriptures written up till that time (Acts 15:19). From this we may gather that there is certainly nothing wrong with Sunday school buses, PA systems, Training Unions, missionary conferences, or a thousand other things not mentioned directly in the scriptures. However, in this present chapter we are not concerning our­selves with a study of such items. We all know God is a “Trinity,” although the word is not found anywhere in the scripture; we all know that the “Advent” is Pre-millennial, although neither word is found in the scriptures, and we all know that the saints will be “raptured” out of this world, although that word occurs nowhere in either Testament. But here we are dealing with the deliberate perversion of common, basic, fundamental truths that any Christian could find immediately if he were guided or instructed by anyone (2 Tim. 2:2) who believed the scrip- fcres to be the word of God. Granted that a teacher of the Bible in the -t three centuries of church history might have had trouble with e rews 6; 10; or Zechariah 1; or the Song of Solomon (God knows _^gh of them have trouble today!), it is impossible to understand why oOj W*1° lh*nk they are smart enough to dissect the Trinity (Council wouidaCa^ an^ PaSS e<^’cts on Professing Christians, anathematizing them, E? fe'nk that drawings of an electric chair or a hangman’s noose

were the signs of a Divine blessing. The “cross” was the Roman instru­ment for capital punishment, and according to God, it signified a “CURSE” (Gal. 3:13). Nor could there be any mistaking of that fact by any Christian who read the passages (Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23) in either Testament, as to what a “tree” signified. Life from a dead tree is the “branch” of pagan religions; it is connected with olive wreaths, olive branches, mistletoe, Yule logs, and the “Hollywood” of the heathen, who couldn’t possibly sell a wooden cross to a believer who knew that life came from his own, personal Saviour, who was mur­dered (Stephen calls it “murder,” Acts 7:52) on a “tree.”

Tertullian (160-220), Cyprian (195-258), and the “Apostolic Constitutions’’ (third century)93 all mention “the sign of the cross” as part of baptismal rites, inscriptions on tombs, engravings on helmets, coins, seals, scepters, crowns, and above all, its use against demon pos­session. A Christian is supposed to be able to exorcise demons (Acts 19:13) by using the sign of a CURSE (Gal. 3:13). Viewers of Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist should appreciate the droll humor. Paul and Jesus Christ cast out devils every time they turned around (Mark 1:25; 5:13, Acts 13:10; 16:18), and neither of them had any more use for a piece of wood, shaped like anything, than they had for a popcorn popper. How did the first Christian who made the “sign of the cross” escape the charge of HERESY? If he “crossed himself,” he put himself under anathema, without a council touching him (Gal. 3:13)!

The Charismatic “fish” pops up out of nowhere with the only expla­nation being that some German rationalists (Schultze and Merz)95 thought it was an allegorical representation of Christ’s flesh.96 An “acrostic” is found in the Sibylline Books,91 to make you think that a fish repre­sented Christ; Tertullian capitalized the letters in the “fish” and calls Jesus Christ “our FISH.”97 Schaff lightly sluffs the matter off with the note that it was a “pious fancy” which might “best be traced to Alexandria.”98 It is mentioned by Origen and Clement, our “qualified scholars” of chapter five.

Now, if Clement and Origen could read the Bible (and we presume they could since Origen quoted it over 17,900 times), how could they have failed to notice that the “great fish’’ (Jonah 1:17) which symbol­ized Christ’s death, burial (Matt. 12:40), and resurrection—not Christ Himself—was a SEA MONSTER (Job 41:1-32) who is identified with SATAN (Isa. 27:1; Rev. 12:9)? Who are these “reverent Biblicists” who have no trouble in recognizing that fishes are types of lost sinners (Matt. 4:19) and then go right ahead and pretend that a fish is an alle gorical representation of Jesus Christ? Who are these egotistical upstarts

in our own century who undertake to alter the Old Latin Bible in Alex­andria" and the Old Syrian Bibles in Caesarea100 (“correcting” the Bible in more than 5,800 places) and then can’t find out what the same Book says about the things they are discussing? Do they ever consult it for information or for edification, or just for critical analysis and amusement? Do these “recognized scholars” (any century) have enough eyesight to see that the fifth cherub (in the Book they were correcting) represented the serpentine or aquatic class of animals (Ezek. 1; 10; Rev. 4:7), and that he is missing from his place “over the throne” (Isa. 14:12; Ezek. 28:14) so that the four remaining cherubim represent only land and air animals? “Fishes” are out of the question; how do you make a fish a type of Jesus Christ when the Lord doesn’t even allow a representative of that family to appear before His throne? What “qualified scholar” would think of such a stupid thing?

Origen taught that the “darkness” of 2 Peter 2:17 was spiritual ignorance. Is that teaching a heresy? Augustine says that praying for dead saints is the uniform practice of the church: what church? Irenaeus and Justin Martyr taught the final annihilation of the wicked, exactly as Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford taught it. Was that due to igno­rance, or willful rejection of the revealed truths of God? In view of Revelation 22:15; Daniel 12:2; and Matthew 25:41, are we really to believe that Justin, Origen, Augustine, and Irenaeus were that stupid? In 431 A.D. it was decided that orthodox Catholics were to call Mary “The Mother of God, ’’and anyone who would not use that expression (in this case Nestorius: Council of Ephesus) was a heretic. Since no saint in either Testament would think of referring to her by that name, and no one in the book of Acts ever asked her for the time of day, and Christ Himself had only referred to her as “woman” (John 2:4), what was the point in even considering using the title? Could it be that the apostate Catholics of the fourth and fifth centuries had more light on Mary s nature than the apostles who prayed with her (Acts 1:14)? Can a plea of primitive ignorance get the “fathers” through every time?

If Mary was “the bridge from God to man, the scepter of ortho­doxy, the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Temple of Christ, e root of Jesse, the Scepter of David, the Rod of Aaron, and even Salvation of the Heathen,”101 how is it that not one orthodox Bible A *®ving Christian anywhere during the entire “Acts period” (33-62 • •) ever asked her for anything, ever spoke to her in public, ever

& 1 her advice, ever remembered the birthday of her Son, or ever ta./1 ment'oned her name when preaching ANY Biblical doctrine? If

rae,zi Syrus (379 A.D.) prayed to Mary, followed by Gregory

Nazianzen (389 A.D.), upon what grounds did they do it? No one in the New Testament did it. Who were they following? Certainly not Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, or anyone like them.

Did any of the church fathers know that all of their pagan forbearers had female deities called “the queen of heaven”? If they didn’t, couldn’t they have found out by reading Jeremiah 44:18 and guessed it? Again let us ask ourselves: who are these Greek scholars (they all spoke and wrote in Greek) who do not hesitate to correct God Almighty anytime

they object to what He says, and at the same time plead “ignorance” for assimilating heresy? If they did not plead ignorance (100-400 A.D.) when put on the griddle by the Paulicians, Donatists, Bulgarians, and Novatians, who are these low-down hypocrites in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who are pleading ignorance for them now? Could it be that the modern Conservatives who defend them now are just as careless and as incoherent in Bible study? The church fathers quote the New Testament 36,289 times. Who, then, in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries is going to plead ignorance for them, except a CROOKED LAWYER? If Augustine was in favor of damning here­tics,102 he should have demonstrated his convictions by a simple case of suicide—a beautiful example for other heretics to follow. Certainly there was nothing Biblical about Augustine’s views on baptism, his plan of salvation, his political views, his views on prophecy, his treatment of the brethren, or his views on the local church. If every “heretic” had been flushed and killed instead of just those who disagreed with the followers of Constantine, then Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Ephraem Syrus, Cyprian, and Eusebius would have hung by their necks. A “Christian” who believes in the Deity of Christ and calls Mary “the Queen of Heaven in the same breath is like the zoologist who crossed a crocodile with an abalone in the hopes of getting an abadile: instead he got a croco- baloney. Imagine a Christian boldly and bravely announcing that he believes in one or more “essences” in one or more “substances, consubstantial with (or without) hypostasis, while he is depending on sprinkling by a “godfather” to get rid of his sins! Imagine that.

There are “heretics” and then there are heretics.


The Lights Go Out

“I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” John 9:4

The period of history that begins around 500 A.D. and extends to the Reformation (approximately 1500 A.D.) could properly be called “the Dark Ages.” On the authority of the infallible words of God (AV 1611), the day-year system of the “seven-sevens” (Lev. 23; 25; Exod. 21; 2 Peter 3; etc.), this period represents a nighttime bracket of 9 p.m. until 3 a.m. Bible-rejecting historians (ninety percent of all the histor­ians), including members of the Alexandrian Cult (Schaff, Latourette, LaGarde, Neve, Dollinger, Neander, et al.), have searched out a num­ber of ways to get around this scriptural division. The most modern way is by calling part of the period, or all of it, “the Middle Ages.” What secular educators fail to see when they do this is their unwilling and unconscious assent to Biblical Christianity, for according to the “seven sevens system” set up in the King James Bible, there are five hundred years before the Middle Ages and five hundred years after the middle. By calling 500-1500 A.D. the “Middle Ages,” the stupid fed­eral educators have dated the Second Coming of Christ at 2000 A.D., for as surely as a line was drawn for the beginning (at the year 500), , middle ’ ’ can only have five hundred years after it; otherwise it is not the “middle.” So God continues to make “foolish the wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 1:20).

The Pergamos period of history begins with the Council of Nicaea ends somewhere around 500 A.D. From Augustine’s time up'to for k D ’ Per*°d marks the use of the word “Pope” or “Papa”

e western bishops; then in 500 A.D. the word came to mean the °^Ofnc, who by 590 A.D. was recognized by many as a “Uni- Bishop.“i Augustine (354-430), of course, marks and defines e Roman Catholic. He has all of the earmarks: the spirit of bigotry

and persecution, the spirit of spiritual blindness and ignorance, the spirit of piety and self-righteousness, the sacramental and ritualistic spirit, and above all the fake humility of a Bible perverting philosopher. He would have made an excellent “pope.”2

The outstanding characters of this period of history (325-500 A.D.) are Chrysostom (345-407), representing the Antiochan school—following the Byzantine text of the King James Bible—and his Roman counter­part, the Catholic Jerome (340-420), who produced the New Testament text of the ASV and NIV fifteen hundred years before they were published in America. Jerome’s New Testament, which became the official “bible” of the Roman Catholic church (and still is), is the match-meet for the Westcott and Hort Greek text of 1582 (the Jesuit Rheims Bible of chap­ter 4, note 92). With the official acceptance by the leaders of the church of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, from the Alexandrian Cult manuscripts,3 the lights around the Mediterranean go out, the lights in Europe begin to turn on, and every time they turn on there appears on the scene some “Catholic” who is commissioned to turn them off again. The Dark Ages, from a scriptural standpoint, are the results of an official church state adopting a devil’s Bible. For a counterpart in history, one may study the history of England since 1884, when that same Bible was adopted, or the history of America since 1901, when that Bible was adopted. The “writing of divorcement” given to the woman in Matthew 19:7, in every Greek text, says Pi^Xiov dTtooTdoiov (biblion apostasiou)—an apostate Bible. A nation gets its walking papers when it steps out on God.

The councils called during this period were supposedly called to settle the Apollinarian question (Constantinople, 381), the Nestorian question (Ephesus, 431), the Eutychian controversy (Chalcedon, 451), and the Monophysite controversy (Constantinople, 553); the truth of the matter is the councils were called to give more power to councils so that church councils could become the final authority in all matters of faith and practice for “catholics.” The Council of Sardica (343) was called exclusively for western bishops, so that this council could decide ■ that the Roman bishop (in the western half of the empire) should be given the precedence over the eastern bishops (those in Antioch, Smyrna, etc.). Could it have decided anything but that? By then (343) the Roman . bishop was well on his way to the place of military dictator. As ear Y as 154-168 A.D. the Bishop of Rome (Anicetus) had tried to get the ■ Syrian churches in Asia Minor to alter the date of the observance M Easter,4 as Constantine had tried to get the Novatians to do.5 j

was undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that he had access to ■ 2 Clement (apocryphal books added to the New Testament in

Sinaiticus manuscript), and since “Clement”—whoever in blazes that was—had earlier undertaken to instruct a Pauline church (Corinth) set up in the east (Greece), so it logically followed that Anicetus could “go and do likewise” and thereby join the ranks of the “apostles” (Pauline Obsession).

Stephen I (253-257) had tried to straighten out the brethren down in North Africa, as he considered Rome to have jurisdiction over every­thing within eight hundred miles. Cyprian (195-258) shut Stevie up even though he had to overdo the office of the local bishop6 to get his point across; Cyprian’s point was that every bishop was so exalted and so supreme that no other bishop (be he ever so exalted and supreme) could dictate to him.7 And when Cyprian was a boy, Victor I (190-202) had threatened to excommunicate the Syrian and eastern churches for cele­brating Easter on the Bible date (the 14th of Nisan) instead of on Sun­day every year. (If one observed the Biblical date, “Easter” would change days from year to year and would not fall annually on Sunday.) This ancient row was a bone of contention between the Bible believing Celtic Christians of ancient Britain, who followed Antioch of Syria, and the Catholic “missionary” Augustine, who followed Rome (see chapter 12).

By the end of the fourth century these warring bishops had divided off into five geographical areas, and the leaders of these ecclesiastical centers became known as the five “patriarchs.” They “fed the flock” (supposedly) in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alex­andria: quite naturally Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all leaned toward Constantinople, which was nearer “home base” than Rome, so the Roman bishops had to shift for themselves. This they were well able to do for two reasons: the first and most obvious reason was that Constantine had to all practical purposes given them a throne, and although Constantine’s sons reigned on (and more about that later), the Bishop of Rome was a religious ruler of Italy, France, Spain, Switzer­land, Carthage, Sardinia, Sicily, and what is now western Austria and southern Germany, as well as parts of England. Secondly, Origen and Clement had caused a deadly schism in the east that would never be ealed: the difference in matters of belief and interpretation between e Alexandrian Cult, who followed Origen and Eusebius, and later ugustine and Jerome, and the Bible believing Christians who would accept philosophy, science, and tradition on an equal footing with nfrPtUre‘ unifying factor, then, which eventually put the Bishop no °me into the place of a world ruler of heaven, hell, and earth8 was the invasions of the barbarians, although this happened; nor was

it the invasion of the Turks in the east, although this happened. It was the fact that the Alexandrian Cult was able to pollute both branches of the church, and that the popes, from the first one that sat on the throne (Leo I, 440-461, according to some; Gregory, 590-604, according to others) to the last one who surrendered to the Russian Soviet (1970- 1978), were all in agreement with the Alexandrian Cult: none of them preferred the Bible over philosophy, science, and tradition. The Cult is marked by dual authorities, where the third authority plays “god.”’ The dual authority for a Roman member of the Cult would be CHURCH TRADITION, composed of councils, fiats of the popes, and the “church fathers”—interpreted by GOD, the third authority. In this case “god” means the pope of the Church.10 The final authority for a Conservative or Evangelical Christian in 1980 who is a member of the Cult11 is the AV and the New ASV,'2 or the ASV and the NIV, or the AV and the

NIVand the RVand the NASV, interpreted by GOD. In this case, “god” means the “recognized Christian scholars. ”13

To return to Rome, Constantine passed on to his “due reward” (whatever that was) on May 22, 337 A.D., and his “works followed him” (Rev. 14:13), whatever may have been involved in that. His sons, Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius (Connie seems to have been

hung up on one name: his own) began immediately to butcher various other relatives in the family and finally wound up killing each other. Constantine II was slain by Constans in 340, who in turn was murdered by Magnentius, 350. Constantius became sole emperor in 353 A.D. Constantius was a fanatical “Arian” who liked to be called “Bishop

of Bishops” (archbishop), which was nothing out of the way since his father had been so highly exalted that he had presided over every bishop in the church (Nicaea, 325 A.D.). The next apostate into the ring was called an “apostate”—“Julian the Apostate”: he was a nephew of


Since the great “victory” of Nicaea had thoroughly established “Catholic orthodoxy,” Constantius rejected it, and Julian went a step further, after being trained by Eusebius and being baptized an ordained,14 he immersed himself in heathen philosophy, picked up a of the sorceries and superstitions he could from pagan religions (3000- B.C.), and was initiated into the “Eleusian Mysteries,” believing in dreams, visions, oracles, and black and white magic.15 Like his pag forefathers, he worshipped the sun-god (Helios) and sacrificed to up^ ter. To pass his real religion off as a “Christian religion,” Julian to sponsor a reformation among the heathen priests to make them • like Catholic clergymen. So the priests of Apollo, Zeus, Jupiter, e

were to believe in and practice separation: they should give alms, live chaste lives, have no long hair, have no rock records, wear simple cloth­ing, and stay away from theaters and taverns.16 They were to dress like Catholic “priests” and bishops and practice Catholic rites of excommunication, absolution, restoration, and a mumbo jumbo of “sacraments” all accompanied by music from a well arranged choir (see Alexandria: chapter 5, notes 14-16).

Adopting Constantine’s Satanic method, Julian decided to lower Christianity another rung down the ladder by getting the bishops embroiled in theological disputes.17 This proved to be a blessing for the local assemblies who really believed the Bible because Julian, as any Roman ruler, was only gunning for the big quail: the “recognized scholars” who were “qualified” to dispute. Consequently, most of the “dissenters” were left to propagate the gospel without the terrors of the former imperial persecutions (see chapter 4).

When Julian died, Jovinian took over (363-364). After one year of professing to believe in the Athanasian orthodoxy of Catholicism (Nicaea, 325), he died. Valentinian I took over and reigned until 375 A.D. He rejected Nicene “orthodoxy.” The next ruler was Gratian, his son (375-383). Gratian sidled up to Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan (Augustine’s old buddy), and then had a merry time taking the rights and liberties away from every local assembly that didn’t knuckle down to the Catholic church.18 His brother, Valentinian II (383-392), replaced him but followed in his steps. Theodosius the Great reigned from 392 to 395 A.D. Theodosius professed “fundamentalism” (Nicene Cathol­icism) and firmly anchored the Catholic church to the Roman State, giving it all the rights and privileges of a state religion, including armed officers to kill Bible believing “dissenters.”19 Hence, historians refer to Theodosius as “the Great.”20 After his death, his four sons (Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius II, and Valentinian III) inherited a fractured empire which had again broken into two parts due to the controversies between Bible believing dissenters in the east and Roman Catholics in the west; this time the Roman Empire never recovered, at least not the '^tperial form of it. The Lord God had evidently had enough killings, urnings, lootings, stabbings, and imprisonments of Christians by atholics” who had settled down into the world system of sun wor- •Ppers. He decided to wipe Rome out.

n 378 A.D. the Roman Emperor Valens lost his life in a battle nanople) with the Visigoths, who had crossed the Balkans after being Cen^se*^ westward by the Huns, who were invading Europe from west- ra Asia. On the death of Theodosius (see above), Alaric and the

Visigoths plundered the countryside to the walls of Constantinople and then invaded Greece, penetrating as far as Sparta. By 401 A.D. (Jerome at this time was 61 years old, and Augustine was 47 years old), the Visigoths were threatening northern Italy. Alaric marched on Rome in 408 but did not capture it until 410 A.D. (at this time Jerome was 70 years old and Augustine was 56 years old). Alaric died (410), and Ataulf, the Visigoth, took command of his armies and marched into southern France (Gaul) and settled there. The Kingdom of the Goths (419) from this area became half of what is now modern France.

While these events were taking place, the Vandals (called “Arians” by all the historians—assuming that all of them were Christians who differed with Nicene Catholicism!),21 Alans, and Suevi invaded Gaul and went on into Spain. The Franks were pressing into northern France. As the Germanic conquests advanced, they drove the Celts westward into England, Ireland, and France. The Vandals tore through Spain into Africa (425 A.D.) and then sacked Rome in 455 A.D. At this time Leo I had been a “pope” for fifteen years. There had been another terrible invasion of France in 451 by the Huns under Attila (reigned 435^453), who came clear through Italy in 452 to sack Rome but was bought off at the last minute by Pope Leo I (440-461).

This sudden deliverance from the heretical “Arian” on the part of the Bishop of Rome raised his stock so high that, henceforth, he was called the ''king of Rome,” and he refers to Rome, henceforth, as the “QUEEN of the Universe.” The pagan Catholic historians call Leo I modestly “the pope of SALVATION.”22 In view of this sudden elevation of a Bible denying apostate, who was in favor of killing anti­Catholic subjects,23 what could have taken place when St. Leo met Attila the Hun?

Well, it was said by some that Attila had the pants scared off him when he saw a figure robed in white, like a priest, standing behind Leo with a drawn sword—a likely story. Again, several psychotic Catho­lics said that St. Peter or St. Paul showed up in the nick of time (depend­ing upon which one of them founded the Roman church, unless both of them did). At any rate, Leo I shelled out: he payed “protection money” to get rid of Attila, and he had plenty with him, for when he went to the Mincio River to meet Attila he had crosses of gold, g°l monstrances,24 royal banners, and probably enough cash to finance a Mafia. But the encounter is of tremendous theological import, for it shows that although Pope Leo I did not believe in killing HUNS (even if they were Arian), he did believe in killing “heretics.’ 25 Evident y the deciding factor in determining which “Arians” to kill was the stz ■

of the armies they led. Killing heretics is “orthodox” if you outnum­ber them (see chapter 14, note 111). “Heretics,” in Leo’s case, as in the case of all subsequent popes, meant anyone who accepted the Bible against tradition (see previous chapter). For example, Leo, along with Ambrose, believed implicitly that Christians should get Peter and Paul to pray for them although both apostles had been dead for more than three hundred years.26

But aside from believing in these godless and depraved vestiges of pagan religions, Pope Leo had more important matters to attend to than buying off Huns or killing people who didn’t pray to Peter or Paul. Like any political incumbent, his main job was how to stay in office after he got there; self-preservation has always been the first law of life (Job 2:4) for the unconverted. You could always buy off Huns, but you had a hard time buying off your fellow patriarch in the east near Syria, where the New Testament manuscripts were written. Leo’s main concern was interfaith competition from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The fourth ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was held in 451 A.D., and at this council (twenty-one years after the death of Augustine) the Bishop of Constantinople was elevated to such a place of power and prominence that he nearly threatened the Roman bishop’s influence.27 Leo’s papal legates at Chalcedon vigorously protested to this “unscrip- tural motion,” but they got nowhere. This would make Constantinople a “new Rome” with a patriarch just a “smidgen” (southern colloquial term, 1900-1980) under the Roman bishop in dignity and authority. Still, Leo I had a definite advantage, for the imperial court of the Byzantine emperors was in Constantinople, where it would not put too much pres­sure on the holy papa in the west. The patriarchs of Constantinople were always under imperial pressure, for the emperor lived in their “home town.”

Finally, a synod was held in Ephesus in August of 449 A.D. which attempted to depose “Leo the Great.”28 Leo quite naturally called it * Robber Synod” and suggested that everyone in the east come to ‘n l^e west’ where they could be more “objective” and “neu- *n ^eir political movements.29 They finally met (but not in Italy) e east *n Chalcedon, and they decided among other things that the Peter was speaking by remote control through Leo,30 and also glfc anyone who disagreed with Leo I was CURSED. Not content with state of things, they took three more shots of cocaine (or heroin: Chris' 1 < r^nS are divided!) and decided (as good “Bible believing I lans ^at a man was a blasphemer of Christ if he refused to

call Mary “the Mother of God.” To update these matters, we read from a tract placed in the city hall of Pensacola in 1978, stating that anyone who claims that God is their Father but does not claim Mary as their mother is an UNSAVED SINNER on his way to hell. These are the people who like to quote Matthew 7:1 when you witness to them about the new birth.

At Chalcedon, Leo had objected bitterly to the twenty-eighth canon, which dealt with the ecclesiastical elevation of the Bishop of Constan­tinople; however, Leo didn’t object to one thing that was said about the “mother of God” or Peter (deceased over three hundred years) “speaking through him.” There are “heretics,” and again there are heretics.

One of the great theological dead ends of this period was what his­torians called the Pelagian heresy. As other “heresies,” it became the occasion for much argument, writing, debate, and conciliar action, which were all designed and manipulated to avoid the issue: absolute author­ity. As the church continued to degenerate into a mass of carnally minded, worldly, sprinkled apostates, the issue of religious authority became more and more important as it was obvious that religious anarchy or political “mobarchy” were “in the offing.” In 502 A.D., when Bishop Ennodius of Pavia stated that the pope can be judged by God alone,32 he pretty well stated what good “Catholics” are supposed to believe about final authority.

Pelagius (about 400) was a British monk who espoused the old Celtic brand of Syrian Christianity33 and used the old Latin of the Waldenses and Albigenses (that is, the Textus Receptus of the King James Bible).3* He chose the Antiochan school of theology (Acts 11:26) rather than the Alexandrian; so, naturally he got off to “a bad start” with his con­temporary, Aurelius Augustine, baby-sprinkling persecutor of the Donatists. Jerome, also being a member of the Alexandrian Cult in good standing, easily sided with Augustine in the “Pelagian Controversy.

A Spanish Catholic named Paul Orbsius was the first to stand up and declare that the writings of Pelagius were heretical. When Orosius said that a council at Carthage (Augustine’s anathemas placed on the Donatists) had condemned Pelagius’s writings and that Augustine had written against his errors, Pelagius said, “What matters Augustine to me?”35 (Pelagius was no respecter of persons—not even a North Afri can Catholic). He was then sharply rebuked, being told that since the whole North African church had been SAVED from the errors oft 4 Donatists" (the Donatists believed in separation of church and stat J they rejected infant baptism and refused baptismal regeneration) I

Augustine,36 that Pelagius should be excommunicated. He was exon­erated, however, by a council in Palestine (in the east) under Eulogius, the Bishop of Caesarea. Immediately, two North African synods (Carthage and Mela) condemned Pelagius’s “errors” and appealed to Rome for help. First of all, Pope Innocent (402-417) commended them for their wisdom in appealing to him as the final, absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice,37 and then he agreed with their com­plaint (2 Sam. 15:4). Consequently, the North African council of the Alexandrian Cult assembled and declared that any Christian who said that infant baptism could not take away “original sin” was damned, and any Christian who said that Adam would have died naturally if he had not taken of the tree of life was damned.38

Further, if a Bible believer says that babies can get into the king­dom of heaven without water baptism (i.e., Catholic sprinkling), he is damned. This time the Cult got an emperor to back up their “ortho­doxy.” Honorius published an edict against “Pelagians.” Pelagius’s followers were stuffed into a bracket with the “Nestorians,” who had refused to call Mary “the Mother of God.”39 Like the Norrisites of the 1930’s and 1940's and the Ruckmanites of the 1970’s and 1980’s, they were pronounced “anathema.”

Now, what damnable heresy do you suppose Pelagius had been teaching?

Well, to be perfectly honest about it, the main objection to Pelagius’s teaching was not his theological system that dealt with original sin, free will, or the “form of freedom,” or the “first stage of freedom.” Nor was it the “plenum or perpetual tabula rasa of freedom,” nor the three elements in the idea of good (power, will, and act), nor was it to be found in his views on “justitia per naturam" or “justitia sublege” or justitia gratiae.” Now, when a “hit dog” yells, the rock is never that hard to locate (Rom. 2:1-3). Pelagius’s arguments, as discussed in Schaff’s history,40 do not impress us. Schaff was predestinated before the foundation of the world to justify Augustine before he began to write by virtue of the fact that both of those five-point baby-sprinklers believed *n a holy catholic church”41 and were counting on their water bap-

to give them the new birth: exactly as Popes Leo and Honorius

• No, the infuriating thing about Pelagius’s teaching was apparent: / ere is no original sin inherited from Adam, then sprinkling babies

°f nothing. Pelagius was a threat to any church state system t k ’3a'3'es to coerce Christians into submission and that wanted ■_ cep their membership roll stacked (see chapter 14, notes 137, 173).

gustme s anti-Pelagian system was as full of holes as a rotten cam­ouflage net.42

In the year of 529 A.D. the Catholics at the Synod of Orange adopted a semi-Augustinian system (after killing Pelagians for nearly fifty years). The semi-Augustinian doctrine taught that the soul of man was injured in Genesis 3 (of which the scriptures say nothing) and that free will can only be restored by sprinkling in the Roman Catholic church,43 of which doctrine the scriptures are as silent as Yankee Stadium at 3 a.m. Nevertheless, Pope Boniface II confirmed these matters in 530 A.D.

Thus regeneration of infants by sprinkling became an official Cath­olic doctrine (orthodoxy) for the “Church of Christ,” with the back­ing of the Greek emperors and Roman bishops. This blatant, God defying denial of the New Testament plan of salvation (John 1:12-13; Rom. 10:9-10; 4:1-6; 5:1-10) was designed to create an unregenerated church membership where Satan and his own sons (John 8:44; Eph. 2:1-3) could control the lives and destinies of every Bible believing Christian in Europe, since they were commanded by their scriptures to “obey the powers” of the state (Rom. 13:1-6).

Summing it up, one may say that the most damnable heresy, that had more to do with the bloody massacres of the Dark Ages than any other heresy, was the heresy accepted as orthodox Bible doctrine by Jerome, Augustine, and the popes. Alongside regeneration by immer­sion (or sprinkling), the Arian heresy, the Nestorian heresy, the Eutychian heresy, the Donatist heresy, the Pelagian heresy, the Sabellian

heresy, the Montanist heresy, the Manichaean heresy, and the Novatian heresy appear as inspired scripture. Regeneration of infants by sprin­kling can produce nothing in the end but an unregenerate church full of whitewashed, religious hypocrites. With the establishment of this Catholic “fundamental of the faith” (Boniface II, 530-532), the last light in the Mediterranean area goes out, and the local assemblies who believe the Bible become hunted animals. By 590 A.D. we enter the Thyatira church period (Rev. 2:18). It continues until the century that

saw the Crusades (1090 A.D.).

While we have been giving our attention to the matters of witches and witch hunters in the first four centuries, and also the political gyra" tions of the “catholics” (synodical legislation and ecumenical councils), we have temporarily lost track of the Bible believing witnesses w a considered the imminent return of Christ and the gospel imperative be of more importance than hairsplitting discussions about philosop y and theology. When we last observed our practical theologians, ey were going through “tribulation” in the Smyrna period (Rev. 2. JI of church history, and they were coming up to the third heaven in their own blood (Rev. 12:11). Wherever their backslidden bret i

took a step away from the Bible, they parted company with them (Rom. 16:17) The continual dissenting from the state church after Nicaea was exactly like the continual dissenting before Nicaea, except it was accel­erated. It became now Puritans and Protestants who protested against the abandonment of the New Testament by Roman Catholics.

The Montanists had left (among other reasons) because they objected to the Gnostic rationalism that was creeping into the writings of the “Church Fathers.” They also resented the moral laxity of the Catho­lics of their day. As a Bible believer would suspect, the Montanists came from Asia Minor in the east (where John wrote to the seven churches and where Paul evangelized on three missionary trips from Antioch). The Montanists were also called Priscillianists and Cataphrygians. The most anti-Catholic doctrine they taught—which revolted all the ortho­dox bishops—was the teaching that there was no special “priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), but that every believer was a priest. This “heresy” directly contradicted the teaching of the faculty members of the most unusual university in Africa (see chapter 5). Montanists were Pre-millennial; that doctrine also rubbed the faculty members raw. Whatever their oppo­nents may have said about them to convince students of history that they were terrible heretics can easily be overlooked if one studies the rest of church history (500-1900 A.D.); every dissenting group of peo­ple from 100-1980 A.D. who believed the Bible (and did not knuckle down to the ecclesiastical powers of their day) were called “heretics,” for, after all, that is the New Testament designation for a real believer (Acts 24:14).

When the Novatians hauled out of “mother church.” following their leader Novatian, they did so because of the laxity of church disci­pline under Cornelius, Callistus, and Zephrynus; many of them then united with the Montanists.44 Neither of these groups were ever forgiven by the “catholics,” who then decided if you could not hang Montanists and Novatians for desiring moral purity and discipline, at least you could hang them tor being “unorthodox” in their conceptions of the Trinity, ince the Catholics themselves practically put Mary into the Trinity and left Christ hanging on the cross (chapter 9, note 93), it was a pure case ot a skunk accusing an opossum of having bad breath.

The Donatists had evacuated because they insisted that if a Chris- g"*' as Put on the spot by a Roman emperor or any of his goon squads. . e hristian was to remain “faithful unto death,” and at no time was n tO reveal where he had hidden his Bible,45 nor was he to tell any _*han where any other Christian had hidden a Bible. These scriptural "W’V’ctions are pictured by Schaff as “a fanatical contempt of death.”46

which made them "rush to the martyr’s crown.” Exactly how this con­clusion is drawn, the historian does not say. He may have had in mind some isolated utterances like those of Ignatius,47 but if he does, he doesn’t list them. However, the facts are stubborn things, so history itself now rises up against its chronicler (Mr. Schaff) and proves that his low esti­mation of the Donatists was slander disguised as a ‘‘qualified opinion.” The surest proof that Schaff, and historians like him, don’t know what they are talking about is that when the Imperial persecutions were over— and consequently the need for martyrdom brought to a standstill—per­secution against the Donatists by Catholics went right on until they were exterminated, at least from the Diocese of North Africa, controlled by our good, old, baby-sprinkling buddy Augustine.48

You see, the real root of the Donatist trouble was not any such small thing as refusal to receive ‘‘traitors” or ‘‘cowards” back into the assembly: no, the roots were much deeper than that. The root was that Augustine and Origen conceived of ‘‘the church” as an organized institution into which pagans should be brought so that they could ‘‘learn how to become a Christian,” or at least learn how to live like one (so they could pass off as one). The Donatists thought that the ‘‘church” was a society of regenerated people who lived separated lives.49 That is, the Donatists took the New Testament view (Acts 1-13), contrary to the Alexandrian Cult. They taught that by tolerating those who were openly sinful (1 Cor. 5-6), the church would lose her holy character and calling and cease to be a New Testament church (Gal. 5:9). In plainer words, they took Paul’s view of the church as recorded in the New Tes­tament (1 Cor. 5-6). Augustine and Origen took the view of Constantine: that the most important thing about the New Testament church was not a regenerated membership, nor yet holiness in conduct;50 the main thing was UNION and POWER. To be specific: the personal character of the individual Christian was a secondary consideration with Augustine and Constantine; the main thing would be the validity and authority of the ecclesiastical functions of the hierarchy.51 Augustine and Constantine, in these matters, represented Satan.

Satan’s “interpretation” of Matthew 13:36 is that the “field” is the BODY OF CHRIST (see any exposition by any Post-millennial expos­itor), notwithstanding the definition given by the Head of that body that the “field” is “THE WORLD” (Matt 13:38). But since all Catholics thought that the “leaven” of Matthew 13:33 was the gospel (when it was defined as false doctrine: Gal. 5:9; Matt. 16:12), and since all Ca olics thought that the “woman” of Matthew 13:33 was the “churc (when she was a professional prostitute: Rev. 17), it is not surprising

at this point (313^50) to find the great Bible rejecting heretic Augustine about to authorize the killing of his brothers and sisters in Christ52 on the grounds that he thought the “net” in Matthew 13:47 was the “body of Christ.” Yet by some strange twist of hypocrisy, Augustine would allow the “net” to pull in unsaved pagans, while it was not allowed to gather in any Donatists! Matthew 13 seems to have affected Catho­lics like a dose of strychnine, but such are the ways of the scholars who followed the Alexandrian Cult’s method of “allegorical interpretation.” Platonic allegory is not the way to interpret Matthew 13. The Cult had installed into the First African Church of Rome the teaching that dual authorities are to be used in interpretation; on this occasion, Augustine will “play God.” Nowhere in the Bible does Augustine manifest his ignorance and infidelity more than when he attempts, as the drunken man of Proverbs 26:9, to set a parable on its feet (Prov. 26:7). If we are to take our Lord at His word, in the context of Matthew 13:1-13, we would have to assume that Augustine was an unsaved Pharisee. He could no more handle the parables of Matthew 13 (neither could John Calvin) than he could handle a two-headed cobra.

No Bible believer could have tolerated what took place in the realm of “Bible study” between the time of the first “father” (Papias or Ignatius) until the death of Jerome. One group left the “fathers” because they knew that Easter did not fall on Sunday every year.53 Another group left them because they knew that Origen’s Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were no more “bibles” than Homer’s Odyssey.54 Another group knew, as well as they knew their own names, that Mary was no more the “mother of God” than the mother of Paul.55 Others knew from reading their old Latin Bibles that a state church hold­ing councils to kill Christians was no more “Christian” than Nero’s stag parties. As one light went out after another, the real Christians moved out of the Mediterranean to “shine in a dark place,” or they stood their ground and were butchered. Thousands of them knew per­fectly well that no infant was ever sprinkled or baptized in the Bible. Many of them read St. Augustine off as soon as he opened his big, lying mouth.56 Little boot licking politicians like Eusebius, with crafty plun- i_rers like Pope Leo, had no more spiritual effect for good on the lives 0 thousands of Christians than Constantine’s wine bottles.

. -^hen Jerome finally came out with his Alexandrian Bible (420 • •)—an Old Testament that included Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, and a New Testament fashioned after the Cult—thousands ristians in northern Italy and southwestern France57 turned up their n°ses at it like it was a rotten egg.

After Nicaea, most of these Bible believing people were called “Arians” or “Manichaeans,” unless the name of their leader could be found; in which case they were named after him. The final consoli­dation of the imperial church state (500 A.D.) under an apostate bishop is interpreted by Philip Schaff as meaning that there was a “complete victory of Christianity, transforming the enemy into a friend and ally.”58 If the modern pope were to take over the United Nations and establish a world bank and one world government, Philip Schaff (1819-1893) would write in exactly the same manner today: ignorance is bliss.

Now, what had those dissenters been doing while their Catholic brethren were scrounging around through every manure pile and garbage can in town in an effort to shut down their churches and confiscate their Bibles? Well, they were spreading the good news (Mark 10:29). The urgency of the hour must have impressed them. They saw light after light going out along the Mediterranean, and they knew the Lord had not come yet nor was He “reigning,” in spite of such ridiculous pro­ductions as Augustine’s City of God. They undoubtedly resolved that if the big chandeliers in the dining room and the living room blacked out, they would keep a porch light (or back hall light) on so that fleeing sinners wouldn’t break their necks in the dark, stumbling on Roman Catholic “orthodoxy.”

The first extensions of Biblical Christianity, you will remember, go back to Acts 2, where Jews from every nation under heaven had assembled for a Jewish feast. At that time, with only an incomplete revelation regarding the atoning work of Christ (see Acts 8:38 and com­ments in that commentary), the good news was preached to Jews and Jewish proselytes that Christ had been buried, had risen from the dead, and was coming again to sit on David’s throne (see Acts 2:34-35 and comments in that commentary). Without a doubt, these converted Jews took that news back with them to every major point in the Roman Empire before the conversion of Paul (Acts 9).

The next thing that happened was an Ethiopian eunuch got saved (see Acts 8:35 and comments in that commentary). Without a doubt, he took the good news into the heart of Africa (Ethiopia) before Origen and Papias were born. Not only this, but the eunuch took something more with him: he took the gospel of the grace of God—salvation of the individual through the finished blood atonement of a Saviour (see Acts 8 and comments in that commentary). !

The gospel then went to the Gentiles, in Acts 10, but not until after God had called out a man who would preach it to the “ends of the cart (Acts 9:5-12). Paul doesn’t stop till he hits Rome and Spain (Rom-1

15:24), and he may have even gone on to England. Long before super­stitious philosophers like Justin Martyr were talking about regenera­tion by water baptism, hundreds of thousands of Christians knew that a sinner was saved by grace through faith, without a drop of water. This was commonly known throughout the Roman Empire in any local church that had access to any of Paul’s epistles, or copies of any of his epistles, or witnesses to his preached messages, or any writings, or sermons from anyone he trained (2 Tim. 2:2). To suppose that God intended for the body of Christ to be in the dark about the nature of New Testament assemblies, the Second Coming of Christ, water bap­tism, and regeneration, until people like Origen and Irenaeus show up, is the most monstrous kind of nonsense. How did the church fathers quote the Bible 36,289 times if they never READ it? Who are these church historians who keep trying to justify the imperious rejection of the New Testament revelations by the “church fathers” on the grounds that they couldn’t read the Old or New Testament as we know them? They all read them. They just didn’t believe the Bible where their own self-chosen dual authorities (science, philosophy, and tradition) con­flicted with it. They were exactly like any modem Conservative scholar today.

By 90 A.D., nearly every unbelieving Jew in the dispersion who lived through the debacle of 70 A.D. (Titus) knew that Christians believed in the Deity and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ; they knew what Christ was reported to have said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. To think that Judean Jews, who had been witnessed to by the twelve apostles for more than thirty-five years, didn’t remember any of it is as fantastic as the nonsense we have just mentioned. Nothing was “done in a cor­ner” (Acts 26:26), and the attempts of the church historians to pretend that the shades of night suddenly dropped in 90 A.D. and cut off all knowledge of the New Testament so that the “fathers” had to sort of start over” by “enlightening the church" is cockeyed fantasy; it is more than that: it is criminal fraud. Such a church historian is just one more Cult member, between 500-1980 A.D., trying to cover up for the sins of his fellow Cult members committed between 90 and 600 A.D.

Since Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) was home base for New Tes­tament Christianity (Acts 13:1-4) and the missionary center of the early c urch (Acts 16:1-6), it should surprise no one to find thousands of E ,e Relieving Christians in Syria and Mesopotamia before the com- P etion of the New Testament.59 Since the apostle to the Jews, Simon - er, preached in this area (Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13), no Bible believer Ou d think for a minute that Rome or Alexandria would have had any

head-start on “orthodoxy” when it came to Bible believing Christian­ity. Syria had the scriptures in her own language before Origen was bom in Alexandria,60 and her scriptural texts do not “jive” with Origen, who came along later. There were twenty bishops from Syria at the Council of Nicaea.61

Gregory Thaumaturgus (210-270), called the “worker of wonders,” was made bishop of Pontus in Asia in 240. It is said that when he became their pastor, there were seventeen Christians found in the city, and when he died there were not more than seventeen in the city who had not professed faith in Christ.62 Although this is certainly not the “whole truth,” it indicates a swarming population of people who at least pro­fessed conversion. To say that they had never heard the truth and were still in darkness would also be falsifying the facts. According to Hamack, Duchesne, LeClerc, and Eusebius, there were Christians in Alexan­dria following the conversion of Apollos (Acts 18:26). The appearance of Clement and Origen shows at least that the devil was interested in perverting something in Egypt that was going against his designs. Africa became the first main base of Latin Christianity long before Nicaea, and long before this the effect of the old Latin Bible and the evange­lism of those who used it was so great that Greek was abandoned in North Africa and then abandoned in Rome itself and replaced with Latin.63 Harnack estimates the local church at Rome to have a roll of 30,000 members by 250 A.D. Christianity in northern Italy, which always was more Biblical and pure than that of Rome, entered by way of the Po Valley from Dalmatia in the east; that is, from Antioch of Syria and Asia Minor, where the Receptus manuscripts for the King James Bible came from. There never was any pure (or Biblical) Chris­tianity in Alexandria or Rome after the time of Cyprian (258 A.D.).

Syrian merchants carried the gospel into Gaul and the Rhine val­ley. The Greek communities in southern Gaul were originally from Ionia. Latourette conjectures that the Christians in the Rhone valley received their gospel from Ephesus. Irenaeus, in Lyons (southern France), was supposed to have been a student of Polycarp in Smyrna.64 Churches sprang up in Lyons, Toulouse, Vienne, Trier, Rheims, Metz, Bourges, Cologne, Paris, Mainz, and Bordeaux before the Council of Nicaea. Three bishops from Britain attended the Council of Arles (314). H we give them the odds that we found at Nicaea (chapter 8, note 35), there were eighteen bishops in England before Constantine got on the throne, this would be more than 271 years before any Catholic missionary ex er saw England (see chapter 12).

The greatest center of New Testament, Biblical Christianity, as we

----------------------------- — A lovanrlria HCOCC the city

Edessa was predominately “Christian” at the time of Nicaea. Mission­aries from there (mainly the despised and hated Nestorians and Arme­nians) even carried the gospel into Persia, Central Asia, and eventually into China.66 Christianity had penetrated Armenia by the end of the second century.67 So far and wide had the gospel been preached that when the unsaved pagan philosopher (Pantaenus), who founded the school at Alexandria, went from Alexandria to India (180 A.D.), he found people there who had a “Hebrew version of Matthew’s gospel.” This was one of the sources for the famous “Aramaic-Q Document” hassle that Papias and others talked about interminably.

While the churches were swelling with pagan members in Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Carthage due to the policies of Augustine and Constantine, certain basic truths of the New Testament got an even wider circulation, regardless of the spiritual condition of those who heard them. It is truly remarkable, when one considers it, that the Goths up on the northwest side of the Black Sea had their own Bible in their own language (350 A.D.) before Augustine was pronounc- ng a curse on the Donatists; and while Jerome was getting his Alexandrian Cult Vulgate printed on the Holy Virgin Press at Rome (400 A.D.), a missionary in England (Patricius) was getting adults saved right and left and baptizing them.69 So many of the Germanic warriors were professing faith in Christ that Latourette is driven to confess that the word “Christian” is not the same word as the word “Catholic.”

Latourette says70 that the Burgundians (southeast France) became “CHRISTIANS” when the Visigoths invaded their country: before this they had been “Catholics.” (I only heard this remarkable confession one time in my life: it was from a Spanish-American lady in a tene­ment district near Pomona, California, in 1976. She confessed, “No, I am not a Christian; 1 am a CATHOLIC." Sometimes peons in tene­ments have a better grasp of Biblical theology than the Associated Press or the Vatican Councils.)

When Clovis (466-511 A.D.), the Frankish ruler, professed faith m Christ (Dec. 25,496), many of his troops followed suit. He undoubt- y heard the gospel from hundreds of Christians who were in Gaul (France).

The Lord had said “to the ends of the earth,” and to the ends of ®earth the gospel went. The barbarian invasions of Gaul and north ^^only served to reproduce thousands of anti-Catholic Christians who later antl ^°man *n every way; many of them settled in those parts and and anat^ernatized as “Albigenses” and Waldenses or Cathari

■ auhcians.”72 Persecution from Catholics also drove the Donatists,

Novatians, Montanists, Messalines, and Paterines along the shores of the Mediterranean out of Africa, and through Spain into France, and out of Asia Minor up into Switzerland and the Balkans via the Danube; eventually thousands of them cropped up in Silesia, Bohemia, and Moravia (Germany).73 Maintaining purity of practice and baptism of adult believers only, these “Baptist” groups understood throughout their lifetimes that no “kingdom was coming,” as prophesied in the extrav­agant fiction written by Augustine. Augustine had already committed himself to heathenism. He took the position of Constantine: don’t destroy pagan temples; convert them into papal temples.74 Constantine was still classed among the gods by his own Senate long after the “Edict of Milan,”75 and his senators continued sacrificing on “the altar of vic­tory” long after Constantine’s “conversion.”

The “Holy Catholic church” had not only misread the nature of her constitution, but also her commission. Following the blind stupid­ity of Origen and Clement, which they had pilfered from Plato, she assumed that “the kingdom was a cornin’,” and if you couldn’t “bring in the kingdom” by killing Bible believers, you could at least bribe heathen army commanders to do it if “push came to shove.” That is, if you “can’t lick ’em, join ’em.” The unholy queen city of Revelation 17 became a whore who sold her favors to the world in return for favors from that world (Rev. 18:3). We are to presume that she had read her commission as follows: “Go, be mistress of the world” (in spite of John 17:9); “Love the world and minister to the world” (in spite of John 17:16 and 1 John 2:15); “Give them anything they ask for if they consent to come under your domination” (in spite of Rom. 3:8); and “then you will not only be Queen of the World but Queen of the Uni­verse,76 for all will believe what you believe! Peace on earth will come, with the one fold, under one shepherd, and you will get credit for doing what only Jesus Christ might have done and was unable to do” (John 18:36).

At any rate, that is how the Catholic church carried out her com­mission, whether she had read it that way or not.

On the other hand, the Bible believing witnesses and the local assemblies spread out to the ends of the earth in their efforts to convert sinners to Jesus Christ and tell them of His Second Coming (there are more verses on the Second Coming in the Bible than on the Lord s Sup per, water baptism, church membership, and Mary combined). Bi e believers were concerned with the salvation of the individual souls oj men through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, operating grace through faith. Catholics were interested in the unity and po^e

of an ecclesiastical hierarchy by political maneuvering and anathema­tizing opponents. Believers knew that nothing short of a restored image by supernatural grace would suffice for salvation (Col. 3:10), but that would do the trick and do it permanently (Rom. 8:2).78 Catholics believed that even repentance, confession, contrition, penance, baptism, the sac­raments, membership, and confirmation still came short, and that no man could know if he was one of the “elect” until he was DEAD. Bible believers then, as now, believed in the autonomy of the local assembly without interference from the state; Catholics believed then, as now, that every local church should be under the dominion and complete con­trol of a state, dictated to by a church: a church state which guaranteed that no church but a Catholic church could survive.79 Bible believers carried with them a Greek Receptus or a Latin Receptus or a Syrian Receptus,80 while Catholics referred occasionally to “the originals,” which they had never seen, and to Jerome’s Latin New Testament, com­piled originally by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Bible believers would baptize no one but adults, and only then on a profession of faith; Catholics would sprinkle babies after killing their mothers.81

Catholics and Christians are not the same flock.

These glaring inversions of attitude, faith, belief, and practice mean that they don’t belong in the same flock: wolves don’t belong in a fold with sheep.

The duty of every Roman Catholic from 325 onward was to put out every light as quickly as God turned it on, and the duty of every Christian was to keep turning lights on faster than they could be turned off. In view of what happened between 500 and 1000 A.D., Augustine’s prophetic views (The City of God)*2 became the funniest piece of pulp literature to gather dust on the bookshelf since Plato’s Republic.

“The City of God” retained bells, beads, candles, rosaries, Eas­ter bunnies, Christmas trees, bingo cards, prayers for the dead, beer companies, reverence for relics, fish signs, cross signs, black robes, sacrifices to Venus and Jupiter, and books on black magic. When an Arian” became a “Catholic,” he simply professed to believe in the Nicene Creed (where Arius had opposed Athanasius), and then he unwit­tingly became obligated to kill every Christian that wasn’t “Catholic.”83 inversion from Arianism to Catholicism meant conversion from plun­ks Catholic villages ’' and Catholic churches for yourself to taking ^P/he sword and shield for a Bible rejecting, Catholic “pope” and

*n8 his killing for him, plus plundering “Christian” churches and Mages. In this fashion Pope Simplicius (468-483), Pope Felix •’■492), Pope Gelasius (492-496), Pope Anastasius II (496-498), and

Pope Symmachus (498-514) managed to survive all of the barbarian invasions: they used the Germanic tribes against each other. All they had to do was tell a Germanic leader who had been converted to “Cathol­icism” that the tribe threatening Rome was “Arian.”84

The Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) had at last begun to pay off: in hard cash.

Individual Christians in the Thyatira period are still preaching the truth, but one can see by examining their sermons (St. Pat, Chrysostom, Columba, et al.) that the darkness is gathering. Although Patricius (St. Pat: 389-465) never goes to Rome and never recognizes the pope, and although he baptized adult believers only, one still senses a lack of New Testament doctrine in his few surviving works.85 Chrysostom waxes hot and cold between fervent, evangelistic, New Testament preaching86 and sacramental nonsense.87 Jerome has enough sense to get his Old Testament text from the Masoretic text of the Hebrews in their lan­guage (the Receptus of the King James Bible), but not enough sense to get a Greek Receptus of the New Testament from Antioch of Syria, nor enough power to keep Pope Damasus from jamming the apocryphal books back into the Old Testament just like Eusebius had originally had them when he mailed his corrupt bibles to old Connie.88 Crossing from Pergamos into Thyatira is like going from a swamp into a roller derby; the action in one is no more Biblical than the mud in the other, but there is a change of pace.

In the Thyatira period, the truth of God makes an “end-run” around Rome,89 going up through the Balkans from Asia Minor into Germany, on the right flank, and on the left flank going around Spain to Ireland and coming back through England to Germany (Friesland: Belgium and Holland).90 God will send nothing through Rome but corruption; abso­lutely nothing. The pure truths of the Bible preserved in Italy are pre­served in north Italy,91 but not even these truths come northward through Rome; they come westward from Asia Minor and Antioch.92 The truths of the word of God that are found in Gaul (France) in the Dark Ages do not come from anywhere near Rome; they come westward from the Piedmont Valley, the Po Valley, and the Italian Alps.93 Furthermore, the scriptural truths that crop up in Bohemia centuries later, under John Huss, do not come northward from Italy; they come northwest from the Bogomiles and Paulicians in the Balkans.94 What pure Christianity North Ireland has today, it certainly never got from Rome.95 It got lts Biblical Christianity from the Old Latin manuscripts that originated in Syria and from the son of a married deacon96 who was less Roman in his “Catholicism” than Ridley and Latimer (burned at the stake un er


The fireflies that twinkled all over Europe as the Dark Ages descended upon her were never animated at the fires of Roman Cathol­icism. Roman Catholicism lights fires for burning Christians97 or for celebrating the burning of Christians.98 The lesser lights that lit up Europe for the next thousand years (ten centuries!) were energized before the pages of the Book that God wrote—the Holy Bible. The Book had an old Latin version for believers, an old Syrian version for believers, a Koine Greek version for believers, and an old Gothic version for believ­ers.99 Thus, its contents were available for anyone who could read throughout the entire empire. Those fortunate enough to obtain copies of the Book copied it by hand, reverently and prayerfully, and preserved it by the grace of God (Ps. 12:6-7) till it became such a potent force that it split Unholy Mother church right down to the seat of her bloody jeans (see chapters 14, 15).

Unholy Mother church, for the next thousand years, was completely occupied with the problem of unity and power, exactly as she received her commission from Augustine and Constantine. This was essential in order to prove that she was the one true church “which Jesus founded” in Matthew 16:18. Since she had adopted this text (taken out of the context)100 for her “flight plan,” she was forced to fly by instruments. From then on, her own perpetuation had to be her first consideration (Job 2:4), for if the “gates of hell” ever overcame her, then that would be proof she was NOT the church ‘ ‘that Jesus founded. '' Thus, if self­preservation ever became a conflicting duty with soul winning, Bible doctrines, Christian tolerance, belief in the truth, practice of the truth, or preservation of the truth, then those items would have to go out the window:101 “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS” (Matt. 6:24). Dual authorities which conflict lead to apostasy.

So, the big lights in the Mediterranean area went out, and for the next thousand years the Bride of Frankenstein which Constantine, Origen, Jerome, and Augustine had created occupied her time with power Politics; her only religious hobby was putting out every bit of light that

into the world (John 1:1-6; 3:19-20). She became the Bride of *Uan while maintaining enough profession of faith (and retaining enough saved members) to pass off as the Bride of Christ; a remarkable accom­plishment if one considers it (2 Cor. 11:1-3).


Lesser Lights in the Twilight

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.” Matthew 5:14

Passive Christians (like Melanchthon, Ockenga, Arlin Horton, Bill Gothard, J. Vernon McGee, Daniel Poling, Cornelius Stam, J.R. Mott, et al.) in the local assemblies were faced with a real problem when Constantine opened the doors of the church Sunday morning in 314 A.D. for the heathen to join “by letter,” by profession of faith, or by water sprinkling. The influx of these unsaved sinners, who brought their rock records (Hymns to Diana, in those days), their television sets (metal and wood tabernacles with statues in them), and their morals (fornica­tion with “vestal virgins” after a donation to help the “building fund”) with them, caused deep grief and sorrow to the more refined segments of the local church, who longed to serve Christ acceptably but didn’t have the courage to stand for what the Bible said about separation and doctrines (2 Cor. 6:16-17; Mark 4:17). The more timid and retiring members of the local churches from 313-590 A.D. saw their predica­ment very realistically. How were they to live for God and please the Lord Jesus (1 John 2:15) when they had been forced by imperial decree to fellowship and keep company with half-naked savages who used tntages and idols as “aids to worship” and called every preaching service a sacrifice,” since they had been sacrificing to their gods for two thou-

years? The more godly members of local assemblies in the empire (anywhere: Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, esarea, Lyons) were forced to face a Biblical issue (2 Cor. 6:17) H v d'd not have the stomach to face.

ou see, if they insisted on strict church discipline within the Cath- On1C church, they would be branded as “NOVATIANS.”1 If they insisted jj- , re8enerated church membership only, the Catholic priests and °Ps had a word for that: "DONATISTS.”2 If they pointed out to

their bishops that their assemblies were degenerating and making it impossible for the “kingdom to spread,” this would be negative think­ing, denying Post-millennial “truth.” Consequently, they would have to bear the heretical label of “MONTANISTS.”3

You understand, not only did “the Greeks have a word for it,” but the Catholics had a word to shut up anyone who believed the Bible instead of THEM.

There was no way these tender souls could remain loyal to the supreme authority—the word of God—without being called a “here­tic.” If they insisted that the Roman bishop was not the head of the church or that the church had no business playing political ring-around- the-rosy with Constantine, they would be called “PATERINES” or “MESSALINES”;4 and since everyone from Nestorians to Eutychians (by 500 A.D.) were under some kind of official ban, subject to death or exile by Holy Mother church, the Christians who wanted to serve God but didn’t have enough guts to cross “Holy Mother church” had to think of some way “out”: that is, halfway out.

Church historians refer to the expedient they adopted as MONASTICISM.

This asylum enabled any compromiser who feared God enough to want to live holy (while fearing the Catholic bishops enough to obey them) to serve two masters: the bishop and THE Bishop (1 Peter 2:25). It was a clever stratagem to submit docilely to the conciliar decrees, thereby avoiding the ban placed on heretics while at the same time pleas­ing God by “coming out from among them and becoming separate” (2 Cor. 6:17). Going far beyond the modern barbed wire, patrolled dormitory and underground wiring of the modern Christian college or university, these separatists believed in “tertiary separation.” They not only refused fellowship with the Neo-orthodox or Neo-Evangelicals of their day, but they also refused fellowship with Bible believing Chris­

tians who were preaching the gospel.

In keeping with the signs of the times, monasticism begins around the time of Augustine and Jerome: it begins where all compromising and leavened forms of Christianity begin: North Africa, near school.6 Heathen monasticism, of course, is nothing new; it is foun in the Veda (1200 B.C.), Buddhism (600 B.C.), and other religions. Ascetic practices are the heart and soul of Hinduism and Buddhism, along with “inner meditation.” The Greeks, who showed up many y later, had their monastic societies (Pythagoreans). Spiritual me ita 1 and mutilation, or humiliation of the flesh, were as much a tpnchines at Alexandria as purgatory, transmigration o s

and no bodily resurrection. The Essenes in Palestine and the Therapeutae in Egypt were monastic orders of Judaism. The word “monasticism” obviously means “alone” (mono, monoplane, monologue, monopoly, etc.). It assumed a number of forms, but it eventually resulted in the building of convents, nunneries, and monasteries (“homes for monasters,” as someone has said) where the neophyte could be cut off completely from all intercourse with the outside world for a number of days, months, or even years. Meditation, worship, and prayer were to be carried on in these places, along with various forms of self­mortification and penance. The Trappist monastery in Madison, Georgia (1970), is an excellent example of the original institution. Famous mon­asteries were founded in Monte Cassino (529), Cluny (910), Citeaux (1098), Thebaid (348), Mt. Sinai, and Marseilles (432).

The four “fathers” who lent the greatest support to monasticism were Athanasius (Alexandria and Africa), Jerome (of Rome), Chryso­stom (of Constantinople), and Augustine of Hippo (Carthage, Africa). The most fertile ground for propagating the institution was Africa’s most unusual university, were Oriental meditation, Gnostic spirituality, Bible perversion, professing Christianity, and Greek philosophy were all infused into one ball of leaven and taught by an apostate (Origen) who believed that the more asceticism one practiced, the more spiritual he was: to prove this doctrinal conviction, Origen castrated himself, under the pretense of following Matthew 5:29-30.

The first real ascetic “monk” was Paul of Thebes, in upper Egypt (Africa), and the second one “Saint” Anthony of Egypt (Africa). But far more radical in his desired, and more consistent in his efforts to obtain separation and isolation, was Simeon Stylites, the father of the ‘pillar saints,” of whom we shall say more. Simeon was from Antioch of Syria. Pachomius, an ex-soldier, established a corporate monastery for hermits at Tae Tabennisi on the Nile (Africa).'1 The church “father” who brought monasticism to Cappadocia in Asia Minor (Basil of Cappadocia) had to make a careful study of North African monasticism before adapting it to the congregations in Asia Minor.8 In keeping with uman nature, Basil (when he had set up his own monastic retreat at Ontus) spent most of his time compiling an anthology of his favorite

au Or~Adamantius Origen of Africa’s most unusual university.9

The man who introduced monasticism to the west was Athanasius, e champion of Alexandrian “orthodoxy” (Nicaea, 325 A.D.). He was a North African.

ng onasticism obviously implied celibacy—the perpetual virginity Very male in the outfit unless he had married before he went into

the monastery (referred to by some irreverent historians as “a home for unwed fathers”). By 325 it was a generally accepted rule that a clergyman could not marry after ordination if he was single when he was ordained.10 The scriptural authority for this Neo-Platonic virgin­ity was the same set of verses used to prove that Mary was the Mother of God and that babies should be sprinkled. That is to say, it couldn’t be found anywhere in any Christian scriptures known to God or man.

The most striking thing about monasticism is that is was found nowhere in the New Testament. Having access to the church fathers, who quoted the New Testament more than 32,000 times,11 and having officially stated that the New Testament canon is the twenty-seven books of the King James Bible, the Catholic church suddenly decided that it was better to build a non-scriptural institution where the tenderfoots could hide out than to wash their own dirty linen in public, repent, and clean up the pagan pigsty they had made of the New Testament local church (see chapter 1). Since the monastic life obviously had its good points, it could be preferred above obeying the scripture: after all, every­thing about the tree in Genesis 3:6 was “GOOD.” Why obey God when you can do something “good” for someone (1 Sam. 15:21)? However, since the Bible declares that obedience is better than “sacrifice” (Ps. 51:16-17; 1 Sam 15:22), the Catholic church “fathers” missed the whole point and purpose of both Testaments. The “sacrifice of the Eucha­rist” given to sprinkled heathen became the center of worship, while retirement from the direct commission and commandments of God (Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:19-20; 2 Cor. 5:20) became “good” because some good came from it (Rom. 3:8).

With this Jesuit type of logic in operation (see Hugh Hefner, Joe Fletcher, hedonism, epicureanism, etc.), the inevitable was bound to happen; sooner or later some monk in a “monastery” would produce a “Bible” for Bible rejecting Christians.

The man who got rid of the old Latin Receptus (at a time when Latin was becoming the universal language) and replaced it with Origen s Alexandrian New Testament12 was a “monk.” His name was Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome). Jerome (340-420) received his educa­tion from an unsaved pagan (Donatus), his baptism from Rome, his manuscripts from Origen and Eusebius, and his ideas about salvation**! from tradition. His ideas about Mary and monasticism were as unscnpj tural as any heresy invented by Cyprian, Augustine, Clement, Onge®* or Constantine the Great. Jerome’s concept of obeying God an . scriptures had nothing to do with cleaning up the local assem i (Novatianism) or demanding a regenerate membership (Donatism

anticipating the return of the Lord Jesus (Montanism). His notion was that monasticism was a noble institution because Christ and His apostles were poor, because Mary spent more time contemplating than serving tables, and because the Jewish church in the early part of the book of of the Acts was communistic.13

Schaff, the cheerleader for the Oxford Movement in England (nine­teenth century) and the Return to Rome Movement in America14 (twen­tieth century), states it very mildly when he says, “Monasticism, in any case, is not the NORMAL form of Christian piety.”15 You bet your booties it is not “normal.” No, as a matter of fact, it is an impious fraud warned against in Colossians 2:20-23 (which quite naturally has been changed in the NASV recommended at Bob Jones University). However, since it is possible to always find pious people and “godly” people connected with a fraud,16 or going along with a fraud, or sup­porting a fraud, or promoting a fraud, wittingly or unwittingly,17 Monas­ticism could be justified on the grounds that at least it was not a “heresy” like Montanism, Eutychianism, Pelagianism, Sabellianism, Manichae- anism, or the Pauline Epistles!

Since monasticism “promoted the downfall of heathenism and the victory of Christianity in the Roman Empire and among the barbari­ans,” it was a fraud with a “means to a higher end.” Schaff says that it stood as “a warning against worldliness, frivolity, and immorality in the great cities,” and it was a mighty “call to repentance and con­version.”18 Now, the reader will see immediately that Schaffs estimation and evaluation of the institution is remarkable if Schaff was any kind of Bible believer. If the phrase “BIBLE PREACHING” had been inserted everywhere that Schaff had written “monasticism,” the sen­tences would still read the same way, except it would be Bible preaching (1 Thess. 2:13; Isa. 50:10-11) accomplishing the work that God said it was supposed to accomplish—not “Monasticism.” Philip Schaff, one of the greatest Roman apostates of the nineteenth century, subconsciously realizes the terrible error he has made in his reporting; so, he runs quickly back to Matthew 13:33 for a proof text: he may as well have run from a serpent back to a Kodiak bear. The text he picks is the bedrock foun­tion text for every Bible rejecting apostate in the history of the church J ®tt. 13:33). Schaff says (without blinking) that monasticism justifies g_f—even though God condemned it (Col. 2:20-23)—because it was - p5*f the "leaven of Christianity”19 which was to convert the world nstianity. Origen and Augustine both used the same parable the •^7 Way; a lame drunkard, according to the Holy Spirit (Prov.

Some of the monks wore heavy, iron collars; some dragged about heavy chains fastened to their testicles. Others kept their fists shut till the fingernails grew through the palms of their hands. Some stood on one leg for a week; some looked over their shoulders till their neck muscles froze and they couldn’t straighten their heads around; others laid on spikes; some suspended themselves by hooks over hot fires; others fastened themselves to a trunk of a tree from five to thirty years.20 As some wit observed following Adolph Hitler’s Brauhaus Putsch speech (Nov. 1923), “All that was missing was the psychiatrist.’*21 The monks thus set before the world an appalling and hideous example of Bible Christianity even worse than the gross caricature that if found pictured in Augustine’s City of God. Since they all had rejected the Bible to start with and followed Origen’s African school, they arrived at the predes­tinated terminus: Baal worship. Baal worshippers mutilated themselves (1 Kings 18:28) when worshipping the Queen of Heaven (Jer. 44:17), at noon on Sunday (1 Kings 18:27), with the “fathers’’ (Judg. 18:19).

“Paul the Simple” said three hundred prayers a day (it is not recorded that he ever PRAYED). Isidore of Alexandria ate no meat.

Ptolemy spent three years alone in an unwatered desert drinking dew—eventually he lost his mind.22 Macrinus once lay six months naked in a desert, being eaten on by gnats the entire time. A certain Batthaeus had worms crawling out of his teeth, and Simeon the Stylite had unwashed abscesses on him full of worms. Akepsismas of Cyprus lived sixty years in one cell. When he got out, he looked so wild and shaggy that he was stoned by a shepherd who took him to be a wolf.23 (A pure case of a sheep in wolfs clothing!) Nilus demanded of his monks the complete suppression of their sense of blood relationship to anyone; that is, the commandments of Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37 are car­ried out by demanding loyalty to a Catholic institution instead of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. St. Anthony forsook his younger sister for good. Hilary of Poitiers said that he would rather have God kill his daughter than allow her to get married.24 “A monk,” said Pachomius, “should especially shun women and bishops, for neither will let him have peace.”25 This was an admirable proverb if it did come front Pachomius, for it put light on the real problem, which we have a*re defined: if the Christian sought to please God, he would have to o ey the scripture; but if he obeyed the scripture, his bishop would r him as a heretic (notes 1-3). So the “monk” (or monkey) had toj^H out of the local church and get away from under the ordain, (bishop) who pastored that church. Once “out of the church a „ „ the world, he was exposed to “the world, the flesh, and the e

where sex reared its ugly head. There was only one thing to do: invent a “halfway house” (Oberammergau, Germany) where he could be spir­itual without being scriptural. Monasteries with compulsory chapel atten­dance, dormitories, barbed wire fences, monitored halls and classrooms, and no contact with women filled the bill.

Quite naturally, human nature being what it is, the monasteries were filled not only with weak-kneed Christians who couldn’t “face the music,” but they were also filled with unsaved ascetics who were trying to work their way to heaven by self-crucifixion (Col. 2:20-23). This turned some monasteries into a sadistic nightmare many times, and the run-ins the monks had with the flesh26 were as bad as they would have had on “the outside,” and in many cases worse. A normal man with a normal set of glands and a normal metabolism is hardly going to be satisfied with a room, a mat, a stool, a table, a candle, and a picture of the Virgin Mary (Trappist monastery, Madison, Georgia). As some­one had said, “A monk is often clothed in the garbage of a monkey.”

In direct violation of the New Testament epistles, written to the Gentile churches (Col. 2:20-23), Pachomius took his marching orders from an ANGEL (Gal. 1:8) and set up a cloister for “nuns.” He then spent fifteen years sleeping on a stone—sitting straight up.21 Fifty mon­asteries arose following Pachomius’s “godly, Christian example”; nat­urally they all were built in Africa. Ephraem propagated monasteries in Mesopotamia, Eustathius in Armenia, and Basil in Pontus and Cappadocia. The compromisers had found a way out of their predica­ment; they could pass off as “godly” Christians while rejecting the New Testament: if put on the spot they could alter the Authorized text (Col. 2:20-23) and read it as Panosian, Custer, and Neal (Bob Jones University) read it in the NewASV. Sometimes “scholarship” is a great aid to sinners who are looking for an alibi to live like the devil. Their godliness” was based on secondary separation coupled with self-denial and self-mortification, and once this reputation was established, they could convince multitudes of Bible believers that you could still be godly while correcting and rejecting the words of God. Secondary HMation and “high academic standards” would atone for rejection ™1 e and their refusal to obey it.

Hf. e fanatical monastic societies in the east were called Eustathians Historians associate the Messalines and Euchites with them; olic’<’°nSeqUentty every Bible believer in the east who was not a “Cath- | j^.Was accused of being a fanatic.28

(340-397aSt*C*Sm *n Gaul (France) was planted by Martin of Tours

W )> with monasteries being erected in southern Gaul under John

Cassian (432) and Honoratius (426) the Bishop of Arles. Benedict (480-550) of Nursia founded the Benedictine Order of monks after con­verting a temple to Apollos (Italy) into the Mount Cassino Abbey (529 A.D.). Benedict, as Origen, believed in salvation by works; mainly self­mortification, self-denial, and self-crucifixion.29 The “abbot” was the name given to the leader of the monasteries which Benedict set up. The abbot was the representative of God and Christ: the “monks” were not. Here again was a bald faced denial of the word of God (1 Cor. 4:6, 2 Cor. 3:17, Phil. 2:3-8) by men who claimed to have faith in the “church fathers.” The church “fathers” read and quoted the New Testament more than 32,000 times. Certainly a hundred verses in the New Testament dealt with the equality of all born-again believers in Christ (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 3, Gal. 2, Rom. 12, etc.).

Clothing in a Benedictine monastery was quite naturally African, that is, it was a black cowl; from whence came the term “Black Fri­ars.”30 Adolph Hitler was trained as a child in a Benedictine monastery school.^ Benedict’s “rule” stated that the monks should avoid all contact with the world as dangerous to the soul. “All contact” meant no buying, selling, bargaining, talking, or listening to anyone outside the convent property. This was another direct violation of New Testament orders (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; 20:20) given by the One whom Benedict assumed he was serving. To best approximate the source and nature of this movement we will sample the lives of two of its greatest practi­tioners: St. Anthony and St. Simeon. These “lesser lights” made a certain contribution to semi-church history as the sun sank down over the horizon (see previous chapter); and along with Chrysostom, St. Pat, and Jerome, these men show the nature of the transition from the Pergamos period of church history (325-500 A.D.) to the Thyatiran period (500-1000 A.D.).

St. Anthony (251-356 A.D.)

This gentleman, bom about 251 in Coma, North Africa, at one time said that “the Holy Scriptures give us instruction enough” for any rule of conduct.32 In 270 he picked a pre-crucifixion verse aimed at Jews under the law (Matt. 19:21) and coupled it with the Jewish Sermon on the Mount (given under the Law before the resurrection; Matt. 6. ) and used them for an alibi to go and live in a sepulcher; from !*Kn^e ! he went to spend twenty years in a ruined castle.33 Unlike a good a olic, he would not take wine at any time, not even in the “Eucharist^^ i He ate once a day: bread and salt and an occasional date. Only on^ > did he leave his solitude, and that was the year 311, when he appea

in Alexandria, Egypt. He showed himself foj the last time again in Alex­andria to bear witness for Athanasius against Arianism.35

There is no record in his lifetime of 105 years of his telling anyone how to be bom again or what salvation was, in the New Testament sense. Unlike his early feelings about the Bible (see above), he later confessed that his “Book” was not the Bible but “the whole creation.”36 We should not be too hard on Anthony for, after all, the Roman Catholic editor of the Catholic Digest in 1978 (December) couldn’t tell anyone in the twentieth century how to be born again, either. When Kenneth Ryan answers the question about how to get to heaven by the new birth, he answers that sprinkling in the Roman Catholic church IS the new birth and fulfills John 3:1-5— although neither sprinkling, immersion, nor bap­tism occur within twelve verses of the passage in either direction. Why pick on old Tony back in 350 A.D.? His Catholic successors were just as dumb and just as anti-scriptural as he was sixteen centuries after Anthony died.

Anthony, however, spoke of salvation in general terms, and he did not fail to give God the glory for earthly power and wisdom. He did not fail to state that Christ was “the king,” and that a man should be a Christian. He died at the age of 105.37

Of Anthony we may say that in spite of his eccentricities, his lack of understanding of many New Testament doctrines, and his voluntary isolation from the world (to which he was sent as a witness) that at least he was simple, refreshing, dedicated, and not in the least inclined to persecute anyone for their beliefs. He stands as a good example of an uneducated, primitive witness to the basic, general truths of the Bible: God is the Creator,38 Christ is the Saviour, prayer is the way to find both, and Christ should be served. Here St. Anthony’s Bible knowl­edge ends. He is a prayer warrior and a “lover of Christ.” He would fit into a New Testament local assembly as well as Peter the Hermit would fit into a Congress of Fundamentalism.

Simeon Stylites (390-459 A.D.)

B Simeon the Stylite founded the royal order of flagpole sitters, or

jar saints. His first pillar he built himself: it was about ten feet high ^>th a platform on the top of it. He lived on it for about four years.39

ar was about twenty-two feet high, and the third one feet high. His last pillar on which he perched (for twenty —. Jt forty feet high with a platform on the top that was

syJL ree feet *n d‘ameter-4° The gradually rising height of these phallic

s was supposed to represent Simeon’s gradual “perfection” and

,,e second pill ab<>ut thirty-five years) Was ako.

his growth in grace as he approached the heavens (Gen. 11:1-4; Isa. 14:13). He slept standing up or sitting, and he could bow his head to where it nearly touched his feet. One spectator counted 1,244 of these “genuflections” in one day.41 Exposed to drenching rains, frost, sun­burn, and snowstorms, old Simeon tried to get rid of his sins my moan­ing, howling, crying, and prayer: he never got assurance of salvation till he was dead. Nonetheless, Simeon preached twice a day on good works and was credited with healing the sick, settling theological con­troversies, and performing miracles from the top of his perch.42 Although multitudes came to see the freak at the sideshow, he would not allow women to come within a wall which was built around the base of the pillar. He died at 69; his dead body was discovered by some brave soul who climbed the pole to see how things were going. The corpse of Simeon was covered with lice, vermin, ulcers, and salty dirt. Simeon, being economical, was a great believer in energy conservation: he only took a shower when it showered.

Jerome (340-420 A.D.)

The greatest member of the Alexandrian Cult in his day was Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus (382) to revise the Old Latin Bibles being used by the Bible believing assemblies.43 The idea was to give Rome a STANDARD Bible by which she could prove that the Latin Receptus was from “late manuscripts” and showed many “care­less copyist errors.”44

Jerome is one of the great doctored-up “Doctors” of the Roman Catholic church; they canonized him. Jerome partook of the monastic life, highly recommended it to others, and in his entire lifetime was not caught once working for a living (Acts 18:13). He seemed destined from the start to an automatic subsistence provided for by the church or the monasteries, or rich women with whom he consorted.45 He called a nun named Paula “the Mother-in-Law of God.”46 Paula kissed a stone in Jerusalem that was supposed to have been the one the angel rolled away from Christ’s tomb; she disfigured her face to humble herself, tormented her body, and wept for hours at a time to atone for her “sins of laughing.”47 (We are to presume, according to Jerome, that if God had a “mother-in-law” she would have carried on in this fashion, or j something like it.) For several years Jerome wandered around doing his work as a translator in Rome, Alexandria, Palestine, Bethlehem, etc., and wound up in his latter years presiding over a monastery I

Jerome’s high point for “kicks” was being permitted to use t e library at Caesarea, where he found the works of Pamphilus a ■

Origen50 (see chapter 5) neatly preserved by the late bishop—Eusebius.51 He spent all the money he had in his mad desire to purchase the works of Origen.52 Since Jerome himself was a self-styled philosopher,53 he took to Origen like a duck takes to water. After assimilating Origen’s critical approach to the scriptures, Jerome began the work of translating during his second residence at Rome (328-385) at the suggestion of “Pope” Damasus. At the first, he intended only a revision of the Old Latin (the Textus Receptus in Latin called ‘ ‘the Itala ”) but like his fellow Cult members, Westcott and Hort, he wound up abandoning the Received text of the Old Latin in about three thousand places and substituted for it instead the Alexandrian text of Eusebius and Origen54 (as preserved today in the RV, ASV, NIV, and NASV). When Westcott and Hort began their subversive work for the popes55 (1870-1884), they professed that they and their committee would “make as few changes as possible” in the Received text: they made 5,788 in the New Testament and over twenty thousand in the Old Testament.56

After twenty years of perverting the New Testament—as a “good, godly” scholar desiring to recover the “original text” and “put it in words that,” etc.—Jerome finished his work (405 A.D.). Of this text, Philip Schaff (the pro-Catholic head of the ASV 1901 committee) says: “For ten centuries it preserved in western Europe a text of holy scrip­ture far purer than that which was current in the Byzantine church.”57 What Philip Schaff is trying to tell you (with the approval of Warfield; Machen; A.T. Robertson; and Bob Jones, IB—who had his faculty mem­bers do the dirty work for him in print) is that although Byzantium is in Asia Minor, near to Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26; 13:1-3), and although the Greek New Testament was written in the language of Byz­antine Greek in that area, and although the so-called Byzantine family of manuscripts (called “family” by Griesbach, Lachmann, Hort, and others) is from Syria (Acts 11:26), and the originals were written in that language (Greek) from that area, that a Roman monk’s revised Latin text from Alexandria, Egypt, is a “far purer text. ” That is exactly how Westcott and Hort put it in 1884 before the RV committee in England when they appointed Philip Schaff58 to reproduce the same text in

erica in 1901 (ASV).59 "Purer, ’’like the city water system is purer than spring water.

; later severely criticized Origen’s theology, Jerome fol- and Origen when it came to spiritualizing and allego-

“le scriptures: the Shunammite of 2 Kings 4 wasn’t a person, the ‘ever virgin wisdom of God.” The argument between Peter ' U didn’t really take place (Gal. 2), it was just a playlet to instruct

Although he Jowed Eusebius

Antiochan Christians;60 and quite naturally Matthew 24 was all fulfilled three hundred years before Jerome was born—according to Jerome. Jerome, as Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine, was a religious evolu­tionist; he believed the Catholic church was the Kingdom of God predestinated to conquer the world by infant baptism.61 Jerome taught that Simon Peter washed away the “stain of his married life” when he was martyred; that is, Peter’s marriage was “living in sin” because Jerome sensed immediately that if the popes came by “apostolic suc­cession’’ from Simon Peter that that Galilean fisherman could not have been married—at least not legitimately. He couldn’t afford to have had a wife: which he DID (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

Jerome’s Old Testament in the Vulgate is much better than his New Testament, for the obvious reason that he ignored Augustine’s advice to translate the Old Testament from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which he had).62 Since Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contained both Testaments, they were (and still are) referred to as “the Septuagint.”63 Jerome instead went back to the Hebrew manuscripts and Bibles. Being a great admirer of Eusebius and Origen,64 however, he could not resist translating the Greek apocryphal books and the Hebrew apocryphal books contained in the Alexandrian canon65 set up by Clement, Philo, and Origen.66 Consequently, although he did not believe that Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith, and others were inspired,67 he did translate them; and Pope Damasus (knowing that proof texts could be gotten out of these books for praying for the dead and drinking liquor) stuck them into the body of the Old Testament canonical books as part of the inspired words of God.6*

This leavened Bible amalgamated perfectly into the leaven of Augustine and Philip Schaff, who both claimed that the “leaven” of Matthew 13:33 was the gospel and that Christianity would eventually “leaven the whole earth” with pure doctrine and pure practice. Jerome s Vulgate was a perfect Bible for Catholics, as it made remission of sins and redemption of sins the same (see the NASVCol. 1:14, recommended by Custer, Neal, and Panosian at Bob Jones University), which they are NOT. It was a perfect Bible for Catholics, for it upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary (see the NASV, recommended by Bob Jones Univer­sity and Pensacola Christian College) in Matthew 1:25, which the Latt Receptus did NOT. It was a perfect Bible for ERA exponents, for 11 allowed women to be ordained as ministers (see the Amplified New 1 tament, published by the Lockman Foundation) in Romans 16:1 H wa a perfect Catholic Bible for anti-Chiliasts, for it omitted the ending o I Matthew 6:13 (see the NASV), justified and promoted by Bob Jone

III) so that the Jews could not get credit for “bringing in the Kingdom.” Above all, it was ideally suited for Catholic priests because it alleviated them of damaging charges brought against their titles and purgatorial prayers by the scriptures (Matt. 23:14, see ASVor NASV). On the other hand, it was also a fine “bible” for Arians and Ebionites because Christ could never be in more than one place at a time (see the readings for John 3:13 in any Bible recommended by any Christian faculty member of any “Fundamental” school); and the Docetists and Adoptionists could put up with it because the “Lord” left “Jesus” at the crucifixion (Luke 23:42, /15K and NASV and NIV). Furthermore, it was handmade for Post-millennialists and A-millennialists because the literal kingdoms of this world (Rev. 11:15)—plural, not singular—would never be His; so no peace on earth was coming in the future from Christ’s return—only “peace of mind” to Socratic philosophers whose summum bonum was “good will” (see any Bible recommended by any faculty member of any so-called Fundamental or Conservative college, seminary, or uni­versity on Luke 2:14). And finally, it was a perfect Bible for any demon possessed Christian educator who wanted to fool his students into think­ing that it was a “good translation,” for Jerome retained enough of the Receptus’s readings on the “main doctrines” so that anyone could find “the fundamentals of the faith” somewhere in it.

To sum it up: the Vulgate was the perfect synthesized, lanolized, homogenized, leavened, watered-down, mongrelized, Standard, Inter­national, polluted, emasculated, American Standard, Authorized Catholic Version, published in 1901 as the ASV, in 1884 as the RV, in 1960 as the NASV, and in 1978 as the NIV. Jerome’s Greek New Testament

(for his Latin) is published today by Hort, Aland, Metzger, Nestle, Souter, and others and is said by Panosian (history teacher at Bob Jones University) to be so accurate that in it—plus any others you want to add to it, depending upon how you feel when you get up in the morn­

ing we can be assured we have “every word of the word of God.”69 .Jerome’s “eclectic” New Testament text is the ideal text for higher hristian education (1980), as it allows all qualified opinions and “schol- ar y preferences” of the “recognized authorities” to cancel each other out and thus maintain the authority and power of the INSTITUTION.70 UnitY and power were the first considerations of the post-Nicene ,c church, they needed a Bible that would accomplish this purpose. had>b1e £aVe l^ern ’^ea' book- I* was not tbe God-given book that ti fCn God-breathed” or God-inspired: it was not even a transla- Philo’ B°ok- In the New Testament it was Origen, Clement, and acc ’ Ievived to enforce the authority of education at the expense of Bible as the final authority for the church.

With the acceptance of Jerome’s New ASV by the “church,” the Dark Ages begin.

John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.)

Chrysostom, the “Golden-mouthed,” was the greatest preacher and expositor of the Syrian-Byzantine Greek church, which was the custo­dian of the Greek Receptus of the King James 1611 Bible. He was born at the birthplace of Gentile New Testament Christianity (Antioch), and he was converted and baptized there (Acts 11:26). He spent six years in study and prayer under the guidance of Abbot Diodorus (394) and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the father of Nestorian theology.71 He was chosen to be the patriarch of Constantinople in 397 A.D. (At this time Augustine was fifty-three years old, and Jerome was sixty-seven years old.)

Chrysostom was banished for preaching against the sins of the rulers of his day: the religious ruler being Theophilus of Alexandria (North Africa) and the worldly, political ruler being the Empress Eudoxia. John was sent out of the country under an armed guard and died in exile near the Black Sea in 407 A.D. Tradition states that he died on his knees in prayer.72

Although Chrysostom opposed the Arians and Novatians, he would neither persecute them nor engage with them in angry controversy; how­ever, he violently opposed the arbitrary allegorizing methods of Origen’s Alexandrian school.13 Unlike his “catholic” counterparts (Jerome and Augustine), he did not consider Nestorianism to be a heresy. He was a Bible literalist most of the time, although he had his faults when it came to correct interpretation. He had assimilated, as did everyone else, Origen’s heresy that an ordained elder was a “priest.”74 However, Chrysostom’s “priest” was no monk or sacramental dispenser. Chry­sostom’s “priest” was to be a Bible believing preacher actively engaged in applying practical theology.75 And although Chrysostom was not smart enough to see that Simon Peter never went further west than Joppa, he did have enough sense to note that Ignatius of Antioch (not “Linus of Rome) took up the “government of the church” after Peter, and that Peter had preached in Antioch before he preached in Rome.76 Even . though Chrysostom, in some places, had assented to African black magic in regard to the Lord’s Supper,77 he still had the boldness to state that it was the performance of a “memorial of the sacrifice at Calvary.

However, Chrysostom went along with the “spirit of the times in regard to the worship of the saints and some of their relics. ■

Chrysostom was an example of the best Bible believing PrcaC

'J c--i "♦ time at least the best of the well-kno*H

Christian “celebrities” of church history. He was a much better preacher than any of the Roman Catholic leaders (Augustine and Jerome included). He was much more Biblical in his expositions than any of the Roman Catholic scholars (Origen, Jerome, and Clement included), and he was much more balanced and sane in his approach to spiritual devotions than any of the monks, nuns, anchorites, or flagpole sitters of his day. His life, like the lives of Savonarola and Erasmus, manifested that pecu­liar half-in, half-out position assumed by men like Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga in this century. It was a dedicated and prayerful evan­gelistic approach without completely abandoning the word of God, coupled with a moderate, disciplined control of impulses when declaring ALL the counsel of God. There was a “damper” present in the venti­lating system in order to maintain “peace with the apostate brethren.” However, when push comes to shove (as it will every time, sooner or later), a Bible believing preacher has to preach against sin. Chrysostom preached against it, and he was Biblical enough to know that God was no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11). So Chrysostom told the Empress where to head in. He laid it on the line, and they picked up the line, tied his hands with it, and hung him on it.

Patricius (389-465 A.D.)

About seven years before the Thyatira church period started (Rev. 2:18), a man died in Ireland and was buried in a grave which is now the churchyard of a Protestant cathedral (Downpatrick, Ireland). The tombstone says simply, “Patrie.” Church historians refer to him as “the Apostle to Ireland.”

Saint Pat was the son of a deacon and the grandson of a priest.80 He was born in Scotland near a village called Bannavem Taberniae, which is now called Dumbarton; it is situated at the joining of the Clyde and Leven rivers.81 Patrick’s father was Calpurnius, a magistrate and a minister to the British church, which at this time (380-400) had nothing but the Old Latin Receptus of the King James Bible (which, inciden­tally, contains 1 John 5:7, 8 and the supposed “invented” Erasmian Passage in Revelation 22). This explains why the Celtic church of Britain

years followed the Byzantine order of Ignatius, Polycarp, and p^ysostom instead of the Roman order of Papias, Cyprian, Clement, BP rigen.82 Since these early Bible believing Celts and Picts did not

UP w’th Jerome or the Roman Catholic church, the Roman writers °stantly accuse them of being “pestilent heretics.”83

ters' ^at S *etters (The Confession, consisting of twenty-five chap- i e better to Corocticus, consisting of ten chapters; and a Hymn

written in ancient Irish), he is clear on some facts: he is not an Irishman; he never mentions Rome or any pope in connection with anything Bib­lical or Christian; and he was not born on March 17. Furthermore, Patricius was not canonized (made into a saint) until four centuries after his death, and he never even visited Dublin.84 Patrick recognized only the scriptures as the final authority in matters of faith and practice*5 and never appealed to a bishop, council, pope, or king for any religious advice regarding any spiritual issue. Unlike Origen, Clement, Augustine, and Eusebius, he evidently discounted philosophy, science, and gnos­ticism as being worthless.

He was carried away from Scotland to Belfast, Ireland, when he was sixteen years old by a band of marauding Picts (or Celts), and after six years he escaped and returned to England, where he was again in captivity as a slave for a while. Upon receiving a commission (in a vision) to evangelize Ireland, he returned and labored there for about fifty-three years. Legend surrounds St. Pat’s work from start to finish, but the documents containing these fabrications were not gathered or published as facts until St. Pat was Romanized by the Catholic church in the eighth or eleventh century.

Patrick himself speaks of having baptized thousands of grown men.85 He is credited for having started over three hundred local assemblies (seven hundred, according to some of his more extravagant backers). It is interesting to notice that after Patrick’s death (during the sixth and seventh centuries) that Ireland came to be called the “island of saints.” St. Pat evidently was more than an anti-Roman, Bible believing “cath­olic”; he was a missionary-minded evangelist. All of the monasteries set up following his ministry were missionary institutions (located at Armagh, Bancho, Clonar, Clonmacnois, Derry, and Glendolough); they were organized to train missionaries in companies of twelve to thirteen to convert sinners in Scotland, north Britain, France, Germany, Swit­zerland, and north Italy.87 The thousands of converts who listened to these evangelists were terrible misfits in the coming Holy Roman Empire, for there is no evidence that any Celtic church before 600 A.D. worshipped saints or adored Mary or believed in the Lord’s Supper as a “transubstantiation” in a sacrifice.88 Furthermore, the sacred boo which these monastic institutions were engaged in preserving was no i Jerome's New ASV; it was a Bible from the Old Latin which came ou of the Mediterranean area. This God-given, God-honored, G preserved Bible had survived Diocletian’s burnings, Origen s perver^ sions, Jerome’s revisions, and Pope Leo’s anathemas.89 In sP'te : “eodlv” Conservatives and “reverent Biblicists,” the word of G I ...u„ read.

And here begins the Thyatira church period. With the ascension of Symmachus to the papal throne (498-514), with the hoofbeats of the barbarian horsemen shaking the ground all over Europe, with Clovis hustling for the popes, and “Holy Mother church” trying to do every­thing in her power to Romanize Germans (instead of converting sinners), the Bible believers and the New Testament local churches were reduced to the minimum amount of efficiency for over a thousand years; only God knows all of their names, their work, their labors, and their sufferings.

Following the cycle of Paganism (300 B.C.-33 A.D.) came Evan­gelism (33-90 A.D.), followed by Teaching (90-200 A.D.), followed by Culture (200-325 A.D.), followed by Apostasy (325-500 A.D.). By 590 the great Ecumenical movement, or synthesis, had joined church and state, thus uniting believers with unbelievers; this is followed by PAGANISM (590-1500). Biblical evangelism was reduced to sporadic and disconnected efforts of individual Christians to win people to Christ; Bible teaching fell to the lot of individual street preaching “heretics”; and the administration and propagation of the New Testament local assemblies (in a New Testament fashion) became the unthankful and often hideous task of local pastors who were branded as heretics the first time they refused to pray for the dead. The records that deal with Dark Age Biblical Christianity will forever be the chronicles of an under­ground movement, if they are true. Occasionally we shall spot a witness that is nearly apostolic in stature, but in an environment controlled by the Bride of Satan such outstanding figures are going to be hard to find; when the “Bride” finds them, she burns them at the stake.

Although historians vary in their time brackets for this period of chronology, most end the Dark Ages around 1450-1480, while others insert the Renaissance as a separate age from the Dark Ages (1200-1400): we will take the Thyatira period to be 500-1000 A.D. and the Sardis period to be 1000-1500 A.D.

The sun has set. The workmen are in from the fields. Many people PreParing to go to sleep (Matt. 13:25); others are taking advantage ° the darkness to express their “life-styles’” (Rom. 1:29-32) because love darkness rather than light (1 Thess. 5:1-8), and no one can rar. At this time, with the exception of a clouded moon and stars, all the light is artificial light (Matt. 4:14-16); and since aPpro°rePresents th® Bride of Christ (Song of Sol. 6:10), we may an e 1^ stu<ly °f next period of church history as a man watching ual sta^ °^l^e moon by the world. Starlight is all that is left. Individ- I must light our path through Thyatira. The “faith” (Matt. 13:31)

planted in the world (Matt. 13:38) produced a tree (Matt 13:32) that nested demons (Matt. 13:32; Rev. 18:2-5). When the world comes between a Christian and his “Sun” (Mai. 4:2; Ps. 19:4-5), there is a blackout. The correct term for it in church history is ‘‘the DARK Ages.” It was brought about by questioning God’s words (Gen. 3:10—the Alexandrian “antilegomena”), setting up a competing author­ity against God’s words (Gen. 3:2-4: Alexandrian philosophy, science, and tradition), and then rejecting God’s words (Gen. 3:3-5)

Jerome’s Vulgate (called the ASV, RV, NASV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV) signals the blackout. It is an apostate Bible for an apostate church whose membership has followed the leadership of Bible-rejecting apostates for three hundred years.


Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done

“Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations....And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” 1 Samuel 8:5, 7

We all recognize that there are good things accomplished in a can­cer ward; conversions take place in penitentiaries; attacks on the Bible can stimulate people to study; torture can give Christians an opportu­nity to glorify God; you can find all of the “fundamentals of the faith” in the new “bibles’; murder has its positive aspects: it strengthens the police force, sharpens the detective's mind, often causes an inheritance to pass on to others who may use it better, etc. That is, the most pessi­mistic and negative observers of history know that some “good” can take place while an appalling amount of destruction is going on. (“This an ill wind that, etc.”) Our purpose, however, in tracing the history of the New Testament local assemblies is to judge the “good” done by the Bible definitions of “good, ’ ’ not the humanistic standards adopted by free thinkers, logical positivists, philosophers, and church historians. In picking up the golden threads of “goodness” and “progress” and tracing them through the network of the Dark Ages, we will, there­fore, never attach them to the loom of those two famous pagan gods peace” and “prosperity” (Deut. 23:6). Furthermore, we will have ittle to say of unity, since Biblical unity (John 17:21) is a reference to* spiritual organism (1 Cor. 12:12) that has always been united in

st (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 3), with the only further unity desired being ® unity of Bible believing people (Acts 4:32; 1 Thess. 2:13) who agree

at G°d said (1 Cor. 1:10). The political unity of an ecclesiastical was never in the mind of God when speaking of “unity”

■ er 5:1-5; Gal. 6:1). No Christian was ever promised prosperity

above food and clothing (1 Tim. 6:8), and his peace was an inner peace (John 14:27, Phil. 4:7) and only outward on sporadic occasions (1 Tim. 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:19; James 2:6).

In looking back over the road that led into the blackness of black- cowled hoods, black-robed friars, the Black Death (1300’s A.D.), and the blackness of the Dark Ages, we find a number of cheerful items from the standpoint of humanism, socialism, and culture:

1. The barbarian invasions caused a greater unity of Catholics and more compactness in church organization, thus guaranteeing the pres­ervation of three or four Bible truths.

2. The barbarian invasions exposed thousands of pagans to the gospel preaching of “heretics,” resulting in some real conversions right in the midst of thousands of Romanizing conversions.

3. The barbarian invasions forced the gospel to go east to west, according to the Divine plan (Acts 16:1-8).

4. The monastic life gave some spiritual souls an opportunity to read and study some version of the Bible.

5. Alliances of professing Christians with the pagan tribes (Clovis, Pepin, Martel, Charlemagne, et al.) enabled some of the gentler aspects of humanism to permeate European culture.

6. A feudal system arose where certain aspects of chivalry and honor were glamorized due to the influence of the Catholics through their teachings on Mary the Mother and their emphasis on good works for getting out of purgatory.

Now, this spice in all of the garbage is sufficient to convince a “pos­itive thinker” that “the eternal purpose of God, working all things together for good,” was still gradually, by “mysterious ways and means,” operating in history to bring about the day when “man’s inhu­manity to man, and like that there, and etc.”' Positive thinkers (saved or lost) have always been very irrational when it comes to learning the lessons of history.2 Rejecting the Biblical revelation of the nature of man (Matt. 7:11), the inner operations of the minds of men (Gen. 6:5), ’ the world system, the moral character of the men in it, and the men who believe in it (Gal. 1:4), plus the motives and intentions of “accept­able conduct” (Jer. 17:9), a positive thinker has no more chance o learning anything from history—church history or otherwise—than the leaders of the United Nations or the Roman Catholic church. Strange y enough, some of the greatest positive thinkers among the Christians (Schaff and Augustine, for example) professed to believe in the totOU depravity of man. How they reconciled this Christian “conviction their interpretation of Christian history3 is simply mind boggling-

can only conclude that they were stupid enough to believe that the regen­erated nature that babies received when they were sprinkled would even­tually outnumber* the unsprinkled babies that were still “in original sin,’’ and thereby guarantee (eventually) “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’’ (Matt. 6:10). That both men thought this (as well as Machen, Ted Kennedy, Fulton Sheen, Warfield, and others) is apparent by the fact that the ending of the Jewish prayer in Matthew 6 has been deleted (RV, ASV, NASV, NIV, and RSV) in Origen’s Alexandrian text. This subtle mutilation disconnects the “king­dom, and the power, and the glory” (Matt. 6:13) from any association with Israel, who had God for a Father as a corporate UNIT (see Exod. 12:51 and comments in that commentary). “The kingdom, and the power, and the glory” were Rome’s when Constantine manipulated the churches into line with paganism; therefore a Roman bishop (called a “pope” after five hundred years) would not hesitate to claim that “the kingdom, and the power, and the glory” belonged to HIM.5 (For the “good of the church,” of course. Hypocrites always have good motives, John 11:50.6 Jim Jones—Guyana Massacre, 1978—believed in and taught civil liberties, equal rights, gay liberation, social equality, and racial equality—just like some of you.)

Church history, then, in reality is not a study of the Roman hierar­chy. If a historian were Biblical in his approach to history—that is, if he interpreted the solid facts of history in the light of the superior reve­lations given by the God of history—he would have to call the history of Roman Catholicism, “anti-church history. ” By the same token, the Reformers would fall sometimes under the heading of “semi-church history. ” The Reformers would kill the Donatists of their day (the Anabaptists) as quickly as Theodosius or Augustine would in the fifth century. Genuine church history must deal with a body of born again, Bible believing people in the body of Jesus Christ who meet as baptized ■dults in a local assembly (see chapter 2). We shall keep this in mind when attempting to document the history of the “church” through the first halt of the Dark Ages.

Christianization ” is the word used by Schaff and other histori- to describe the Romanizing of the Germanic peoples. “Evangelizing *s n°t at all the proper term for describing what the Roman did to Europe between 500 and 1000 A.D. The Catholic writers ves admit that in spite of “Christianization,” the Germanic tribes after hC r ^ea^s’ ’^ols, gods, oaks, and various superstitions centuries the^pi ecorn*n? '°yal “Catholics.”7 However, Christians traveling in

■ *lippine lslandS, Mexico, and South America today (1980) are

not the least bit shocked by such an observation: it is the standard testi­mony of the centuries where ANY population becomes "Catholic. ” The Catholic writers express a sort of childish “shock” (or a hypocritical pretense) when they observe the ineffectiveness of their “one true church” and “sacraments” on “the heathen.”8 It seems never to occur to them that if a heathen Romanized is a heathen, he is only “twofold more the child of hell” (Matt. 23:15) than the heathen who “converted” him.

We have mentioned St. Patricius. The missionaries that he trained

undoubtedly went out into Scotland and Britain, and of these mission­aries Columba (or Columbkille, born about 521 A.D.) was the most

effective.9 Columba founded a monastery off the coast of Scotland on a fog-bound island called Iona (the Hebrides Islands). From here Columba evangelized Scotland and sent teams of missionaries (twelve or thirteen to a group) down across southern England and over the chan­nel into Normandy, Friesland (Belgium), Germany, and Denmark. Although Columba, as St. Pat, absorbed a few Catholic ways of looking at things, he and his converts are marked with that peculiar anti-Catholic stigma that first showed up around 168 A.D. That is, Columba and his missionaries (and their converts) observed the day of Easter according to the Byzantine reckoning of Antioch in Syria;'0 they would not observe it on the annual Easter Sunday bunny-egg hunt (chapter 10, note 4).

The ninth successor of Columba (Adamnan, 700) tried to line up the Pict and Celtic Christians with the Roman Catholic practice on Easter, but his church members refused to follow him. After his death (704), every missionary monk doing evangelistic work was expelled by royal command (715) if he didn’t put out the colored bunny eggs at the right time: the issue was the date of Easter. By 715 A.D. the stranglehold of the Catholic church was so terrible that they could label a man a heretic for not observing a holy day (Col. 2:16). There is no indication that any Catholic cardinal, pope, priest, bishop, or nun in the history of the church ever read Colossians 2:16 or took it seriously if he did, nor did one of them ever look up Romans 14:5. The history of Catholi­cism is therefore ANTI-church history, for Roman Catholicism is AN

Biblical Christianity.

There were three outstanding differences between early British Irish Christianity and the later Christianity which was enforced b) Papists with fire and sword. One: no transubstantiation or prayers a* dead saints.11 Two: no vows of celibacy or adoration of Mary- the bishops were only pastors; they had charge of no parishes or and they claimed no “apostolic succession.”12 St. Pat and Co u

* ’-- nnnd “catholics.”

The first introduction of Christianity into Britain is as obscure as the list of popes given by the Catholic church (chapter 9, notes 77-79). Some think that Paul himself introduced the Britons to the gospel; others say that it was Peter or James or Philip. Norman legends have con­nected Joseph of Arimathea with the first evangelistic efforts.13 However, Biblical Christianity in some form was certainly established in England before the year 200 A.D.14 Tertullian (208) speaks of converts who were converted without any Roman getting within a hundred miles of them.15 As we have noted, there were three British bishops at the Council of Arles (314). Of the anti-Augustinian Britisher who gave Augustine such a hard time (Pelagius), Schaff says he was “a notable heretic.”16 In the same paragraph the pro-Augustinian Catholic, Philip Schaff, men­tions the fact that ‘‘Constantine, the first Christian emperor,” was also from Britain.17 If the cardinals had installed Philip Schaff as a pope in 1890, they couldn’t have made a wiser choice.

Now, the dictatorial control exercised over foreign powers by the Roman popes was always carried on in a sort of HEW, District Court Judge fashion (1940-1980). That is to say, safe and snug at Rome, pro­tected by “converted” armies of barbarians, the popes would allot certain distant countries to their friends and favorites, and then goon squads were sent out with the promised backing of ARMED FORCE if the inhabitants didn’t get “converted.” (See the race-mixing mess that went on in the federal school system between 1964 and 1980, or FDR’s gen­erous donations of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to Stalin at private conferences held five hundred miles from those territories).

When the news got to Pope Gregory I (540-604) in Rome that Ire­land, Scotland, and England were being overrun with Bible believing preachers who were baptizing adult converts, he realized what any District Court Judge (1964-1980) would realize: “that oppressed minor­ities had to be liberated from this harassment so they could have equal lights." Consequently, he sent out a scout to see if there was any child abuse or “child neglect” going on in merry England. The tenderfoot’s pame was Augustine, a Benedictine abbot (see notes 33-36) who believed *n salvation by works. Naturally he took a Roman Catholic Bible with him and some Roman Catholic commentaries that originated in Alex-

Egypt. *8 The way had been prepared; the English king (Ethelbert) married a French Roman Catholic from Paris (Bertha) who had made plans to get rid of Bible believers in England. She had JgpWt a Roman Catholic bishop with her from France when she got ■gi “• Augustine entered a field that was plowed and harrowed he threw in the first handful of counterfeit seed (Matt. 13:31)— by Philip Schaff and Augustine “the true Christian faith.”

Ethelbert, in democratic innocence, gave Augustine permission to pass out tracts and witness to the people,20 never suspecting for a moment that the godless outfit he was dealing with believed in imprisoning Chris­tians who passed out tracts and burning them at the stake for witnessing to people.21 Ethelbert allowed the Benedictine monk to reside at Canter­bury, and from henceforth the demoniac plenipotentiaries of Catholi­cism looked to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the greatest Christian in England. Jesus Christ Himself never attained such an exalted position (1 Peter 2:25): Jesus was only a Bishop.

Augustine and his monks won “converts” by their “radiant Chris­tian testimony,” their lack of preaching on hell and judgment, and their tactful diplomacy. Their sheepish lives covered their fangs.22 Ethelbert got baptized (or sprinkled), and as soon as Pope Gregory got word from his fifth column, he had Augustine ordained as an archbishop. In an impressive ceremony at Arles, France (not England), the pope graciously gave the entire English nation to a Benedictine monk (chapter 15, note 26). At Christmastime (597) Augustine sprinkled about ten thousand Englishmen who came out for a clear-cut stand against the Biblical Chris­tianity of St. Pat and Columba—which had been anti-Catholic (see notes 80-87). In 601 A.D. Pope Gregory ordered King Ethelbert to do

what Augustine told him to do and to follow his instructions as all good kings should.23 To make this advice more impressive, he sent a few relics of the apostles and martyrs to England along with some sacred vessels and, above all, some good copies of Jerome’s New ASV (the Latin Vulgate) with some transcripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. (“The leaven of the gospel,” Matt. 13:33, had to permeate England like any­

where else.)

In 602, Augustine, with the backing of the pope, the King of England, and the armies of the Franks under Clovis’ four sons, had a friendly “detente” with the British bishops who still insisted on teach- ing anti-Roman Catholic doctrines; i.e., Biblical doctrines. Quite naturally the issues that came up in the meeting were issues that the Council of Nicaea had refused to discuss: final authority and infant bap­

tism. At Sussex these issues were faced. Augustine was quite frank (since he could afford to be); the final authority was a bishop of bishops over five hundred miles away, and infant sprinkling should replace baptism of believing adults.24 Knowing more about Bible doctrine than an^ Roman Catholic archbishop could possibly know (the Britons had ee trained by Piranus, 325-430; Servanus, 450-543; Drostan, 471 $

and Finbar, 490-578; before Augustine was ordained.),25 the r^eV refused to yield. Augustine then pulled off a little A. A. Allen, ■

Ike, David Dunn, Oral Roberts, etc., stunt and “healed a blind man so he could see,26 but it misfired. The Britons still refused to accept a “pope” as the final authority. At a second conference Augustine saw that he was up against it, so he did the only thing that a really “godly, spiritual’’ Catholic archbishop would do: he threatened to call for God’s vengeance against the Christians in Britain by the Saxon armies if the Britons would not give up New Testament Christianity and trade it in for a Roman mess of pottage.27 His efforts at blackmail failed, and the British read him off for what he really was: a gangster. However, when the Saxons finally did invade England ten years later, all members of the Catholic church were taught to look upon it as the divine judgment of God falling on a heathen people who had refused to submit to “God” and obey His vice-regents (whatever that is) on earth. When Augustine was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, some deluded Catholic put the following graffiti on his stone: “Here rests the LORD Augustine who...reduced King Ethelbert and his NATION from the worship of IDOLS to the faith of Christ.”28

Often a degeneration into apostasy is mistaken for “conversion.” Often a degenerate is called “lord” by idolators who worry about "Bibliolatry.

Often a lapse into false doctrine is mistaken for “the faith of Christ. ” There is no tombstone in Europe bearing a bigger lie than the one lying on Augustine’s grave.

The four principle English “sees” (a non-Biblical term for “wards”) became Canterbury, London, Rochester, and York. Philip Schaff, running true to form, gives the credit to Rome’s “nominal Chris­tianity” for the unity of the English nation and the “BEST elements in her civilization.”29 This implies that Bible believing preachers, Bible believing teachers, evangelistic missionaries, and the new birth are not to be connected with England’s spiritual legacy or her spiritual indebt- ■ness. (Latourette’s church history is also devoid of understanding when touching the basic New Testament truths of preaching, teaching, con- ersion, soul-winning, witnessing, evangelism, and local church Planting.30)

11 In discussing the conversion of the Arian Goths to Roman Cathol- *Sm’ Schaff believes with the simplicity of a child that since the B'h?1311'0 ^ot^s on|y “accidentally believed” the teachings of their ,? e (Ulfilas’s Gothic Bible, 350 A.D.) that they quickly became teach’ °X (R°man Catholic) when they became acquainted with the foa *? R°me-31 When these Arian tribes (the Vandals in particular)

e through Africa, the Donatists found them to be more tolerant

of Biblical Christianity than the “Catholic” brethren in Rome.32 The Vandals destroyed the playground of Augustine, Clement, Origen, and Philo, but this time Schaff, the historian, does not consider it to be “the divine judgment of God” falling on rebels—as he did when he commented on the Saxon invasion of England—no, this time it was a “tragedy” because it desolated the “scene of the immortal labors of St. Augustine” (see chapter 6, notes 79-89).33 Let us hope so.

The Salian Franks were Romanized under the leadership of Clovis (Chlodwig), the grandson of Merovig, from whence we obtain the name for the “Merovingian” dynasty of rulers. Clovis (466-511) was bap­tized by immersion on Christmas day (496 A.D.) by Remigius, the Bishop of Rheims, and three thousand of Clovis’s troops followed him. The fruits of their Catholicism were quite manifest in the next fourteen years: bloody biographies, outrageous cruelties, incredible perversity, assassinations, horrible massacres, gross superstitions, outbreaks of fury, fratricidal executions, polygamy, and perjury.34 One might say they had become good Romans; they certainly had not become Bible believing Christians by the wildest stretch of the most liberal imagination. The Catholic antidote for these aborted “new births” that produced “strange children” (see Hosea 5:7 and comments in that commentary) was sim­ple: pacify them with sweetness and holiness by the use of relics, candles, incense, holy water, beads, pieces of the cross, and skulls of the saints. It is a common joke in Europe that there were enough pieces of the cross in Germany, England, Italy, France, and Spain by 1200 to make a ranch-style house,35 and there were two or three bodies and heads of Peter at Poitiers, Rome, Triers, Geneva, and John Lateran.36 It was another standing joke (in the Middle Ages) that since one skull of John the Baptist was smaller than another one, that the small one must have been John when he was a young boy. Which, after all, is just as credible as the inscription on Augustine’s tombstone (note 28).

There were German congregations of Christians in the upper and lower Rhine as far back as the time of Irenaeus (120-192 A.D.), and if these congregations had access to any Bible, of course it was the Old Latin of the Albigenses and Waldenses: Jerome had not yet been born. The Christian history of Germany will parallel the history of any nation in Europe from 100 to 1000 A.D. Four stages are distinguishable, whic • will match: Evangelism (Discovery), Teaching (Colonization), Culture (Civilization), and Apostasy (Deterioration). In the first stage the ^cotc37 Irish missionaries (or Byzantine missionaries) evangelized a P°PU^<^’JO in the next stage they began to learn the word of God and teae Jyp others; in the third stage up shows a bureaucrat from the HEW or

(Russian secret police)—in Germany’s case Boniface—to “consolidate” the work of others and bring it into line with the “cultural standards” of the “qualified officials” in the federal hierarchy at Rome; and finally the forcible conversion by armed military forces of every “noncooper­ative person” who might be a “counter-revolutionary” and not obey the Roman Catholic dictatorship thus set up. Apostasy is the logical out­come of such a cycle.

There were two bishops at the Council of Arles (314 A.D.) from the Rhineland. Notice that the Donatist controversy over baptism attracted bishops outside the Mediterranean area (chapter 7, notes 27, 77). It was the hottest doctrinal issue in the empire before Nicaea (chapter 7), which shows that a Christian witness had gotten into Germany long before Constantine passed any “decrees” of toleration for anyone. As in the case of England, Germany had been evangelized by anti-Catholic, Bible believing missionaries long before the papal “nuncio,” Boniface (718), showed up to “consolidate” the work. Severinus was going up and down the Danube into Bavaria and Asia Minor in the fifth century.38 The Irish and Scottish missionaries from Iona had penetrated to south Germany and eastern Switzerland years before Boniface was bom.38 The Holy Spirit thus indicates that the “way of truth and righteousness” for Europe is around Rome eastward from Antioch and Constantinople, and around Rome westward from Iona and England: never through ROME (see chapter 10, notes 59,90-96). Willibrord (658-739) was raised in an Irish convent, and he came into Belgium and Holland (Friesland) in 690 A.D. He became the first bishop (not ARCHbishop) of Utrecht. An Irishman named Clemens, who preached in Franconia, and a Gaul named Adelbert (Edelbert), who labored in the Rhine area, were both “bad news” for Boniface when he arrived in Germany under the auspices of “Holy Mother church.” According to Boniface, Adelbert was a second Simon Magnus (Acts 8) and an immoral imposter. Since such a character was obviously a “heretic,” he was excommunicated as a heretic (along with Clemens), imprisoned, and then killed.40 Clemens disappeared from the scene.

By now the student of church history should have enough facts at his disposal to intelligently evaluate what a Catholic calls a “heretic.” The charges brought against Clemens and Adelbert by the synods (Soissons, 744; and Rome, 745) were stated by Pope Zacharias (741-752—who incidentally turned out to be a woman according to the Roman Catholics who tried John Huss41), who proceeded to excom­municate both men without a hearing; neither man was present, nor was he allowed representation (Acts 25:16). Pagan Rome (Acts 25:11) was often more “Christian” in its dealings with dissenters.

The charges brought by the Roman papa (in this case, “MAMA,” see above) were that these two “impostors” (tried by a female posing as a male!) were performing miracles, claiming equal rank with the apostles, leading women astray, and boasting about possessing more valuable relics than Rome.42 Would anyone who knew the moral stan­dards, the political dealings, the ethics, and the Jesuit principles of the Vicars of Christ (let alone Vicaresses of Christ!) be inclined to believe half of that? No, the real trouble was as simple as the trouble that Augustine had with Pelagius (chapter 10, notes 32-43). The trouble was that Adelbert and Clemens opposed clerical celibacy (Roman Catholic) and the acceptance of tradition over the Bible (Roman Catholic). They also taught that Christ literally descended into hell (Acts 2:27, 31). Bible believing Christianity (Eph. 4:8-12) has always been a “heresy.”

When Boniface (Winfred) tried to evangelize the Frieslanders near Utrecht in 715 without success, he went back to England, and then made a pilgrimage to Rome (718) to see if he could get some political and military help in “converting the heathen.” Pope Gregory II, there, gave him a commission to Romanize the Bible believing Goths (Arians) in Central Europe. Naturally Boniface was received very coolly in Thuringia and Bavaria since they had already been evangelized by the ' anti-Catholic missionaries of Columba.43 Realizing that he would have to have a government army behind him before he could “preach the gospel” (i.e., get Germans to swear submission to Rome), he returned from Thuringia in 722 A.D. in the wake of Charles Martel’s army.44 , He then founded a convent and returned to Rome. Having learned that a missionary trip is much more “effective” and “spiritually powerful” L»with an army to back up his “church,” Boniface then attached himself to the court of Charles Martel.43 By what Schaff calls a “master stroke i of MISSIONARY policy,” he cut down the sacred oak of the Thunder God at Geismar with his own hands, in the presence of a vast assembly, __and built a church there for Peter—the apostle to the JEWS. Of course, Boniface did not perform this “master stroke of policy” until he had papal military backing: cutting down a German sacred oak in front of a bunch of Germans without and army to back you up (see above) would hardly be good missionary policy, let alone “master” policy.

From here on, the official church of England (which was solidly Roman Catholic) sent to Boniface nuns, monks, and several good copies of Jerome’s New ASV (or NIV, as it could also be called). Boniface founded monasteries in Erfurt, Fritzlar, Ohrdruf, Bischofsheim, and Homburg (now Hamburg). Naturally, Boniface went up through the ranks (see Augustine’s climb, notes 21-22) and attained a degree of holi­

ness higher than Jesus Christ; he became an ARCHbishop (1 Peter 2:25). In 743 A.D. he was installed as the Archbishop of Mainz after founding parishes in Salzburg, Fresing, Passau, and Ratisbon, plus sees in Wurzburg, Buragburg, Erfurt, and Eichstadt.

Boniface completely eliminated his two Bible believing opponents (Adelbert and Clemens) at the Council of Soissons (744); after this, he set up a monastery at Fulda (the “Monte Cassino” of Germany).46 He was killed by armed pagans (“he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword,’’ Rev. 13:10) and so gained the reputation of a Christian martyr for “the cause of Christ” while his Bible believing opponents obtained the reputation of heretics who deserved to die.

Catholics in England chose Pope Gregory, Boniface, and Augustine as “patron saints” for the English Catholics, and in 1875 Pope Pius IX directed all Catholics in Germany and England to pray to St. Boniface that both countries would soon become 100% Roman Catholic.47 Can­onizing popular or important men from different countries (St. Pat, for example) became a powerful and effective means of keeping a group of different nations under one Roman dictatorship.48

Boniface plays a great part in anti-church history for giving to the Germans his Catholic “plan of salvation,” which ran as follows:

1. You renounce the devil and his works because if you do ANY of them—lying, hatred, theft, malice—you shall not “inherit the King­dom of HEAVEN.”49

2. You are to believe in the Trinity according to Nicaea (325 A.D.), or at least profess to believe it that way.

3. Keep the Sabbath and go to church, sponsor babies when they get sprinkled, and give alms because alms get rid of sins.50

4. Abstain from all that is lewd or impure around Christmastime, and don’t even have marital relations with your own wife at this holy season.51

If ten percent of Boniface’s “converts” became Christians, it was an extra-canonical miracle of God with the Holy Spirit operating entirely outside of “authorized channels.” Boniface’s teachings, above, have nothing to do with church history or the history of the Christian church.

ey are the creedal statements of Cain and the Judaizers. No man who ..read Romans through Philemon would believe that they were Chris-

doctrines any more than Adelbert or Clemens believed them.

Columba’s missionary training center at Iona had sent missionaries

. to Scandinavia as well as Germany. In 690 A.D. the Danes came ntact with Christianity in Luersted, Holland, and the first missionary visited them was Willibrord. He had been expelled from Friesland

around 691 A.D., and he came to Denmark in 700 A.D. to form a con­gregation and to teach young men the Bible. King Harold Klak (826) called for evangelists and missionaries. Willibrord was followed by Ans- gar (800-865), who worked with King Harold till 829, and then he visited Sweden, where he stayed until 831 A.D. After a stormy ministry amidst raids, burnings, sackings, and papal politics, Ansgar settled in Bremen, Germany, where he won the King of Denmark (Horich) to the Catho­lic faith.

The first efforts of Ewald and Suidbert among the Saxons, after the Bible preaching of the missionaries from Iona, were unsuccessful. The Saxons of central Germany (Hanover, Oldenburg, Westphalia, and Brunswick) were forest dwellers. Fiercely independent and splendid fighters, they had whipped the Romans so badly at Teutoburg in 9 A.D. that Rome had never gotten over it. The Saxons kept the Franks beyond the Weser River with their backs to the Rhine, and it took Charles Martel, Pepin, and Charlemagne to even get into their territory. The Saxons hated the foreign yoke of the Franks, or for that matter, anyone. They had no more use for a Roman church or a Roman pope than for a Polish pig or a Parisian poodle. When Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse) took over the Frankish armies, he went to bat for the pope by attempting to unite the German tribes into the pan-Germanic state envisioned later by Hitler and others. Believing, as all popes do, that sinners become “Christians” when they are sprinkled or dipped in water (see chapter 11, notes 36-39), Charlemagne took the only logical course of action that anyone would take who sincerely believed in such outrageous non­sense: he enforced water baptism at sword point—if you don’t get sprin­kled, you get executed.

With this noble, “Christian” motive for “keeping the faith once delivered to the saints,” many Germans got “baptized.”32 As we have noted earlier (see notes 3-7), the only hope for spreading a kingdom like the one pictured in Augustine’s City of God would be to produce more “wets” than “dries.”

The Saxons had some convictions, too. As soon as the “Christians (that’s what Schaff and Latourette call them)33 massacred four thousan captives at Verdun, the Saxons promptly burned down a dozen churches and killed the priests. It took eighty-three years (722-805) to Chris tianize” them. At this time (792 A.D.), ten thousand Saxon taini ies were driven from their homes by Roman Catholics and scattered thrt’u^\ out the provinces.34 “God’s truth was marching on; glory- ^° * hallelujah,” etc., by “spreading the kingdom.” The war of Charlernag^J against the Saxons was the first church-approved massacre for the ex

sion of the church; it set the pace for a dozen more later. Unity and power were the church’s first considerations in any set of options (see chapter 10, notes 25-30); so, as we have said, if it came to a choice between UNITY and POWER versus truth and righteousness, the latter items would have to go down the tube; they went.55

Seven hundred years after Charlemagne “converted” the Saxons to Roman Catholicism, a Bible believing Saxon monk reconverted them to primitive German Christianity. The Germans have long memories.56

This now introduces Charlemagne, the great prototype of all Roman Catholic dictators (Talleyrand, Franco, Hitler, Kennedy, Castro, Batista, Allende, Pope Leo, Lenin, Mussolini, Pope Boniface, Metternich, Napo­leon, et al.). Charlemagne, as Napoleon, Pope Urban, Pope Gregory the Great, and King Henry VIII, belongs to the realm of anti-church history. Charlie had no marks of Biblical Christianity on him, and he certainly couldn’t have joined a New Testament local church even with the aid of the Justice Department (see Jimmy Carter’s fiasco at Plains,

Georgia, in 1976, regarding some unwanted members who “joined” by obtaining federal aid in the form of ARMED GUARDS).

The literature on Charlemagne is the works of Einhard, Durant, Migne, Jaffe, Walch, Dipplot, Ellendorf, Bahr, Waitz, Dollinger, Gaston, Rettberg, Stacke, and others.

Charlemagne’s greatest life ambition (768-814) was to bring in the kingdom. He could think of no greater purpose in life than to overthrow the prophecies of the Bible (Rev. 11-13; 19) and to set up a Christian theocracy (see Calvin, chapter 16) on earth without Jesus Christ being present.51 He was the Constantine of the eighth century, though often wrongly called “the Moses of the Middle Ages.” If he was the coun­terpart of Moses, then Bloody Mary was the counterpart of Ruth.

In his lifetime, Charles conducted more than fifty military campaigns {none of them ordered by God, as those found in Exodus and Numbers), fighting against Lombards, Aquitanians, Thuringians, Bavarians, Avars, anes, Slavs, Saracens, Greeks, and Saxons (none against Amalekites, ® Us,tes. Amorites, Moabites, or Ammonites, as in Exodus and Num- rs)- This was done in an attempt to unite all of the Teutonic and Latin ^°P es in Europe into a United Nations under himself and a Roman

° lc P°pe. (It had nothing to do with conquering Hamites before a *he Prom>sed Land: Exodus to Joshua). To call Charlemagne tionUnterPart Moses is to talk like a moron. Charlemagne’s ambi- (“p0WaS t0 accomplish what Satan will accomplish in Revelation 13. histoSH1Ve taking” will never yield the truth in dealing with these

,ca facts, for the Bible has already set itself up as the final and

supreme authority in these “kingdom” matters more than seven hun­dred years before Charlemagne was born.)

Charlie was nearly seven feet tall, with a “commanding and yet winning presence.”58 He was fond of hunting and swimming, and during his meals he had Augustine’s City of God read to him instead of the book of Revelation.59 (Charlie was always a positive thinker: he would not stoop to thinking that the outcome of art, music, science, philosophy, tradition, culture, and literature was the Great Tribulation under Satan- Rev. 13! How could you be a political or religious leader and believe THAT?) He delighted in culture, was familiar with Latin, and highly esteemed his own tongue: German. He founded schools and was a firm believer in “Christianity.” Charlie was a devout and regular worship­per at church, going morning and evening to mass. He endowed churches, built the cathedral at Aix-la-Chapelle, and filled the Roman bank account at St. Peters with gold, silver, and precious stones, sending “countless gifts” to the popes. (A market speculator may guess where all of these riches came from: Charlie certainly wasn’t on salary laying bricks.) Among his more outstanding private enterprises was limiting his concubines to only four after the death of his fifth wife.60 He also took measures to correct every Old Latin version in Europe61 that didn’t line up with Jerome’s NASV. None of the popes opened their yaps about Charlemagne’s four dismissals of wives that he didn’t like.62 When a field commander has as large an army at his disposal as Charlemagne had, ''convictions about divorce” become highly flexible and some­times are simply swept under the rug until someone like Henry VIII comes along. The popes evidently were not only often liars and ego­tists, but cowards as well (see note 67).

Hemy Hallam says that “a strong sympathy for intellectual excel­lence” was the leading characteristic of Charlemagne. “He stands alone like a beacon upon a waste, or a rock on a broad ocean. His scepter was the bow of Ulysses,” etc.63 The Bible believer must understand that such eulogies have nothing to do with beacon lights pointing to the Bible or to Biblical truths; nor is the “rock in the ocean” (see above) the bold stand of any Christian witness for the authority of the Bib e. Church historians do not write within a Biblical context. G.P.R- James says that “no man perhaps that ever lived...was ever more trusted an loved by his people, more esteemed in his lifetime, or more regre at his death.”64 James had evidently not met any Saxons; “his pe°P ® in the above is not a reference to Saxons, Bavarians, Pau Donatists, Novatians, Manichaeans, Arians, or any Bible believing tilled oeople who wouldn’t accept Catholic ba V

tism. James also must have never read Eusebius on the Death of Constantine (see chapter 7, notes 12-19), or if he had, he must have sluffed the bishop off as excess baggage.

The greatest event in Charlie’s life, however, was not his temporary conquest of the Saxons nor his founding of schools and monasteries. By far the greatest event was the Academy Award performance at the Super Bowl on Christmas Day of 800 A.D.

In these days, the Super Bowl was called “St. Peters” at Rome, and the Academy Award was a golden crown. For several years (774-799) Charlie had been running interference for the ball carriers at Rome, whose ministry was putting out lights in Europe. In 774 A.D., for example, when Pope Hadrian was having trouble with Bible believ­ing Christians among the Lombards in north Italy, Charlie crossed the Alps and bailed him out. Again in 781 A.D. Charlie visited Rome with his son Pepin, whom on that occasion was anointed by the pope as “King of Italy.”65 A third visit, in 796 A.D., allowed Pope Hadrian to give Charlie a little gift for his birthday: the keys to the sepulcher of St. Peter—which was really in Jerusalem, in Palestine.66 A few years later

when a terrible riot broke out in Rome, the pope (Leo) was assaulted and almost killed (799 A.D.). Instead of praying and trusting God like Peter, James, and Paul ("apostolic succession,” remember?) the pope did the only thing that a “vicar of Christ” could do; he ran over to Paderborn in Westphalia (Germany) and asked Karl if he would activate the Wehrmacht and help him out.67 Karl did.

Now, this was the background for the great Merry Christmas (Freuliche Weinachten!) in Charlie’s life in 800 A.D. “Karl Der Grosse” was kneeling in prayer before the altar at St. Peters when suddenly who should appear (not “a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer”!) behind him but Leo (the “lion” of the incident above), who runs in and places a golden crown (Rev. 5:10) on Charlie’s head (2 Cor. 4:4). At this, the* local church” (the First African Church of Rome) hollers three times: "Charles Augustus, crowned by GOD!’’M Since the term Augustus” had been thrown in, Charlemagne on his return to France Passed a law compelling every European leader under his dominion to uke an oath of loyalty to HIM (ditto Hitler, 1939) as “CAESAR.”69 v , e Roman Empire was back in business. No title could possibly Btow.. n more aPPropriate for a sprinkled barbarian who had just been in t»u a North African Catholic. The Roman Empire was back to dist'11655 exCePl *h*s l‘me would be called a ‘ 'Holy’ ’ Roman Empire to thirdgU*Sh fr°m tbe Unholy' ’ Empire of Nero and Diocletian (first centuries). Obviously, all good “Christians” were to believe

that the thing that made it holy was the fact that two sprinkled Bible rejectors were “HOLY” while Nero, Diocletian, et al., were not.

The Kingdom had come.

Augustine must have been an inspired divine. At last “God’s will” could be “done on earth as it was in heaven.”

But like most of the schemes of these positive dreamers, where some “dreamer has dreamed the impossible dream, or schemed the impossible scheme,” there was the proverbial fly in the ointment (Eccl. 10:1). The man who had crowned Charlemagne was only a mortal sin­ner, but by his act (see above) he had been recognized by the church (after a few rehearsals and pre-game instructions) as “GOD”70 (Acts 10:26). “Crowned by GOD” could only have meant one thing to a Roman bishop who was in the act of crowning one of his kneeling sub­jects. From this point on, the state (Kingdom of Heaven) and the church (Kingdom of God) were to work conjointly to “bring in the kingdom,” but at the inception of this blessed merger, the church was obviously the winner, for the head of the Roman church (in this case, the pope) had just been accepted as GOD1' while the reigning emperor of the state was only Caesar. Caesar, under God (Matt. 22:20), as head of

a political kingdom (Kingdom of Heaven) was obviously under subjection to the Kingdom of God: that is, “Rbmischer Papa uber alles!”

Observe the marvelous forward progress: under Constantine, although the pope was able to get armed help to kill anti-Catholics, he (the pope) was only a bishop of bishops or a ruler in ROME; under Charlemagne, he obtains military power over every anti-Catholic in EUROPE and is promoted from archbishop to GOD.

Under this divine arrangement, future popes, as “top dog,” have the right not only to select which king can reign over which kingdom, but they also have the right to interdict or excommunicate any king they don’t like. In other words (Merry Christmas, Happy New Year), 800 A.D. marks the installation of a Roman Catholic pope as the supreme political ruler of the nations of Europe, with the obvious intention of becoming the supreme political ruler over every man, woman, and child bom in both hemispheres.72 It also marks out the identification of the greatest type of Antichrist on this earth (2 Thess. 2:1-9), according to the definitive statements of the New Testament (Rev. 13:1-10). Having apprehended the title of God the Father for himself (John 17:1U, Roman pontiff now accepts the adoration of his subjects as Go Father (Dan. 11: 37) and claims the power to install rulers.7’ From ® forth, any ruler who will obey the Roman dictator and keep his su J ”—Roman Catholicism will be a GOOD ruler, while any

who allows rebellion against Roman doctrine, Roman teaching, Roman laws, Roman sacraments, Roman priests, Roman officials, or Roman councils will have to be a BAD ruler: good and bad are no longer deter­mined by the Bible. Rome, by 800 A.D., has replaced the Bible standards of “good and evil” with her own. You are “good” if you support Rome; you are bad if you don t.

Henry VIII was not bad because of his divorces (see Charlemagne, above); he was bad because he wouldn’t kneel at St. Peters to get crowned by a pope. Hitler was not bad because he did away with six million Jews; he was bad because he allowed Balder Von Sirach to lead German youth (1936-1945) into a party where allegiance to the Father- land was more important than allegiance to a foreign state—the Vatican state. Hobbes stated it exactly when he said that the “pope” is the “ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.”74 (See The Sure Word of Prophecy, p. 32.)

However, until Charlemagne died, the Roman popes could not enforce everything they had planned. Charlie still held the royal flush because he was still an active commander of an army. He presided at the Council of Frankfurt in 794 instead of the pope, and he continued to appoint his own bishops and abbots without the pope’s consent. If Pope Leo had croaked during Charlie’s lifetime, he would undoubtedly have filled the vacant papal throne with one of his own bishops.75 Fur­thermore, Charlemagne did not wait for any Roman papa to crown the next ruler of France; after being married five times he crowned his own son (Louis the Pious) as king at Aix-la-Chapelle in 812 A.D. Later the imperial dignity of this crown removed from France to Germany, which became politically separated after Charlemagne’s death. Karl himself was a Teuton and, while alive, represented both nations.

With the usurpation of the power of God by a cowardly bishop and the acceptance of the title “Caesar” by a man who believed in killing Christians (800 A.D.), Philip Schaff notes only that the papacy was * wholesome check” and the empire was a “wholesome check,” with toth ‘securing order and unity,” both “nourishing the great idea of a commonwealth of nations...a BROTHERHOOD OF MANKIND”76 and “a communion of SAINTS.” In Schaff s sick thinking the Holy l^ttan Empire was a “law to lead people to the gospel” (misquoting ^■•23-24 when he made the application).

owever, we shall refer to the establishment of this empire as the dQS thjat*‘°n Unho,y Mother Whore” in future chapters, and we will jOhn th *n w't^1 die sweet spirit and charitableness shown by

■E e beloved apostle (Rev. 17:1-6) when he wrote under the inspi­

ration of the Holy Ghost. Likening the papacy and the Empire to the Old Testament law (which is holy, just, good, and spiritual: Rom. 7:12, 14) is like comparing the ASV of 1901 with Joseph (see preface of the New ASV, 1960). By such logic the RSV must be a type of Paul, and Das Kapital must be a type of Jesus Christ.

Backtracking for a moment, we pick up the Frankish reigns. Clovis died in 511 A.D. His four sons divided up the possessions, and in 588 Lothair secured the whole kingdom; at his death (561)? his sons split it up. Dagobert (628-638) was the weakest king in the Merovingian line, and after him came more figureheads until the time of Charles Martel (688-741). Martel won the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. and con­quered the Frisians, Neustrians, Thuringians, Bavarians, and Alemanni, though he could not handle the Saxons. Pepin the Short (714-768) ruled after Charles Martel. He captured a few Lombard cities for the pope and brought the keys to those cities to Rome and placed them on St. Peter’s tomb—which really was in Jerusalem in Palestine (note 66). Charlemagne reigned over the Holy Roman Empire from 800 to 814 and was succeeded by Louis the Pious, who boot-licked the pope most of his life. Later Louis’s three sons took over: Lothair, Louis, and Charles the Bald. Lothair got the title of “Emperor” at his father’s death. All three brothers fought each other until the Treaty of Verdun in 843 A.D. From this treaty came the following allotments:

1. Louis the German received Germany.

2. Charles the Bald got France.

3. The Rhineland between them went to Lothair, who also got Italy.

This family, called the “Carolingian” dynasty, disappears from history in 987 A.D. after the election of Hugh Capet as “Holy Roman Emperor,” following the reign of Otto the Great (936-973 A.D.). 1

The various causes which lead to the disintegration of the empire under Charlemagne’s successors were the invasion of the Vikings from the north, the invasion of the Hungarians from the east, and the invasion of the Saracens from the south. These events, and those associated with them, cannot help but remind the serious student of history of an old, familiar friend (or enemy) whom he has met before. What man who believed the Bible and studied church history could fail to see the events of 400-500 A.D. (see chapters 10-11) repeating themselves?

The eternal cycle of church history is as fixed as the laws of t er modynamics; the only thing that could follow culture was APOST > and the only thing that could have followed the apostasy in the founii of an “empire” was PAGANISM. Charlemagne's culture cou a no other terminus than the pillaging of Rouen (841), the sac mg

Nantes (843), and the capture of Paris (845) by plundering barbarians from the north. This time they were the Northmen, who came to plunder monasteries and murder bishops, enslave monks and, in general, exe­cute the judgment of God on an ungodly and unholy, Bible rejecting church that insisted upon usurping the place of the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing peace on earth (chapter 10, note 76), and now the place of God the Father in ordaining the “powers that be” (Rom. 13:1-4). Schaff, Dollinger, Durant, Neander, LaGarde, Huizinga, Fisher, Newman, and Walker can no more see the connections in these Biblical matters than the links in a chain of DNA molecules.

The Thyatiran period of church history (500-1000 A.D.) exhibits the greatest departure from “the faith once delivered to the saints” of any period in church history. The conduct and creed of the entire official church (Roman Catholic) by this time is of such a nature that one only marvels that the Black Death was delayed by God until 1300 A.D. (see Deut. 32:23-27).

Dominican and Minorities in Rome gave witness to the fact that a woman had once been a pope, and her bust, along with those of other popes, was found in Sienna (see note 41). She was called John VIII by some after Catholic historians began to deny her existence, and this so screwed up the list of “apostolic succession” where it touched the term “John” that John XX had to call himself John XXI,77 and John

XXIV (1960) had to call himself John XXJI1 (who lived in 1410). Clem­ent VII (840 years after the death of the popess) called her “Zacherias. ”78 During a procession from the Vatican to the Lateran, an untimely birth revealed that there was more than one person under the “papal robes.”79 Pope Joan (or Zachariah, or Zecherias, or John VIII, or Tiny Tim, or whatever it was) became the only mother, dressed like a father, to become a mother while she was a “Holy FATHER.” (A notation for the Guinness Book of Records if you ever saw it!) Mosheim attests to all of this, although the French Catholic historian David Blondel naturally ascribes it to mythology, along with Schaff.80

Pseudo-Jsidorian Decretals—three pious forgeries, as Sinaiticus firs ^at’canus—were written to enforce Unholy Mother’s desires. The ^Kbook is in three parts, the first part containing “canons”81 and spurious decretals from the spurious Clement who forged the Epis- dement found in the Sinaiticus manuscript.82 The second part lns a f°rged document called The Donation of Constantine with ferent^aCtS canons’ and tl,e third part contains decretals from dif- Popes.” About thirty-five of them are forgeries.

CharlieeSe ^ecreta's advocate a papal theocracy exactly as Leo and H PUt't across in 800 A.D. Thev state that the reonlar memhershin

of the churches is made up of carnal sinners to be called “laity,” while the pastors are “priests” who are spiritual—according to the Alexandrian teaching of Origen and the Gnostics. The final and absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice is to be the Roman Catholic pope.83 The decrees further allege that when Constantine was baptized by Sylvester in 324—he was not baptized in 324, and he was not baptized by an orthodox bishop—that Constantine gave him the Lateran palace and all of the imperial Roman insignia, together with Rome and all the territory of Italy.84

These forgeries were written in France, and they were quoted as New Testament truths at the Paris Council of 829, the French Synod at Chiersy in 857, and by Hincmar of Rheims in 859 A.D.

All of these “shenanigans,” as we have said, belong properly to anti-church history. They should be handled in the briefest way possible, as not one of them has anything to do with the history or progress of the New Testament church. They have to do with the violent spread of an ecclesiastical hierarchy by fraud and bloodshed. To file such oper­ations under “church history” is to create chaos out of confusion.

A series of popes in the Thyatira age bridge the gap between Pope Leo and Otto III (died 1002). Since none of them were Bible believers, and since all of them were members of the Alexandrian Cult, and since none of them were soul winners or faithful witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ, the less said about them, the better.

1. Nicolas I (858-867) took sides against the patriarch of Constan­tinople (Photius) at the Council of Rome (863), whereupon Photius excommunicated the pope. This permanently alienated the Greek Cath­olic churches from the Roman Catholic churches. Nicolas, however, succeeded in humiliating an archbishop in Rheims who was a friend of Charles the Bald by reinstating an enemy of his (the Bishop of Soissons) after he had been jailed. In this controversy, Nicolas estab­lished the heresy that no king has a right to try a Catholic bishop (chapter 15, notes 12-16).

2. Hadrian (867-882). .

3. John VIII (872-882). Both of these egotists claimed the right to be able to set up kings and depose them. However, John did ma e one decent gesture in his time which almost caused him to be ana matized: he took sides with a group of evangelistic, Bible be dissenters around Constantinople called “Bulgarians (chapter

78; chapter 4, note 73) and said that God had created other lanfe,u for worship besides Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. That is, he a"°We otjier a man could translate a Bible (or preach out of a Bible) in som

tongue. If the Bulgarians had been preaching in his diocese in the west, undoubtedly Johnny would not have been so liberal. But since they were evangelizing in the east (see Photius versus Nicolas), it would be to John’s advantage to encourage dissenters and schismatics in another man’s territory (see any of the works by district and federal judges in America between 1960-1980). You see, the “popes” have not only been known to be liars and cowards, but trouble-making politicians as well.

Following Charlemagne’s blind lead into Alexandrian culture instead of the Bible, the apostasy took the political kingdoms back into paganism, but it also took the popes with it. Three professional hustlers (Theodora and her two daughters, Marozia and Theodora) began to fill the papal “throne” with a variety of paramours and bastards.85 Sergius III “soiled the chair of Peter with every vice.”86 The lover of Theodora (John X) was the “Vicar of Christ” and “Prince of the Apostles” from 914-928; a woman had him cast into prison, where he was smothered to death, while she put three of her own sons on the chair as “successors to blessed Simon Peter” (Leo VI, Stephen VII, and John XI), the last one being a bastard son, twenty-one years of age.

4. John XII (955-963), as “Holy Father,” disgraced the tiara for eight years by being one of the most immoral popes who ever lived. He committed homicide and adultery, lived with his father’s mistress, drank toasts to the devil, and turned the Vatican into a brothel, while

praying to Jupiter and Venus.87

Otto the Great (936-973) restored the Carolingian empire so that the Germans would have the imperial crown of Rome thereafter. There follows Popes Leo VIII, Benedict V, John XIII, Benedict VI, Benedict VII, Boniface VII, John XIV, Otto III (Gregory V—the first pope of German blood), followed by John XVI and Sylvester II.

From the standpoint of church history—not anti-church history or semi-church history—we may say that their lives, works, teachings, conduct, and ministries had no more spiritual effect for good (in the Testament sense) than the worst heathen who ever drowned their tes in the Nile. To write about such religious charlatans as a serious church history, in view of the New Testament definitions of e *S m°St s^arne^u* hypocrisy.

■L. ese men are the men who approved of (and authorized) the killing EL ogomiles, the Paulicians, the Arians, the Bulgarians, the Pater-

> and every other Bible believing group contemporaneous with them, in the 6 sPea^< more of their political dealings with the patriarch ^chismT)1 (Constantinople) when we study matters relating to the Great

’ U45 A.D.) between the Greek Orthodox communion—which

humbly professes to be the only church that Jesus Christ founded~mA the Roman Catholic communion, which (equally as humble) professes exactly the same thing.

But now, it is time to give our attention to matters of more impor­tance than “Caesars” crowned by “God” trying to “bring in the king­dom.” Since the Kingdom of God is not “meat and drink” (Rom. 14:17) and has nothing to do in this age with anything that can be seen or handled (1 Cor. 2:4-14), we will have to look for our real “kingdom builders” in some other locality than a million dollar cathedral built by extorting “Peter’s pence” from serfs.88 Scriptural kingdom builders in Thyatira will not be sending gifts to kings or trying to fix the date of Easter; nor will they be found sprinkling babies and praying to Boniface. Since the new birth is required to enter “the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)—not “the kingdom of heaven,” as misquoted by historians—and since this is the work of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-9) after convicting the sinner of the sin of unbelief (John 16:9), the “king­dom builders” in the church age will have to be engaged in preaching the living words of the living God (John 17:17), which are able to give the new birth (1 Peter 1:23) and save the souls of those who hear them (James 1:21) and believe them (John 5:24). “Belief’ and “unbelief” in the Bible contexts given above are never connected with “belief’ or “unbelief’ in a church hierarchy, a church organization, the traditions of ANY church, or the claims of any church. If any “good,” there­fore, is done in the Dark Ages, it will be done by that One who works all things together for good (Rom. 8:28) through his own ordained “means of dispensing grace” (1 Peter 2:2): HIS WORDS (Prov. 8:6-10). His words never connect the “means of grace” with “sacraments’ or anything like sacraments.

Charlemagne, Martel, Pepin, Clovis, and their playmates (Leo, John, Gregory, and Otto) are interesting from the standpoint ot recre­ational diversions and power politics, but they certainly have nothing to do with church history. Thyatira cannot be translated as papal politics.” No, if anyone is going to locate any “lights that shine in a dark place” (and the tenth and eleventh centuries are denominated asl the darkest of the Dark Ages by Schaff89), he is not going to find them among the candles on the altar at St. Peter’s, nor in the candelabra a Canterbury, nor will he find them dressed up in Halloween costume | parading around as “clergymen.” Light in the Dark Ages, as ma I age, must be carried by a light-bearer; and apart from that wore w i is the “light of the world” (Ps. 119:105), there is no light (Prov. on history whether you are reviewing it, experiencing it, writing

prophesying it. Spengler, Darwin, Wells, Gibbon, Dollinger, Durant, Harnack, Churchill, Huxley, and Schaff are examples of historians who read and write in the dark. Their “kingdom” never comes (no matter what political or economic or social “hope” they hold to) because in the first place they don’t know what it is; in the second place they don’t know who founded it; in the third place they don’t know how it is going to come in; in the fourth place they wouldn’t know the subjects of it if they met them; and in the fifth place they wouldn’t recognize the King who rules over it if they met Him in broad daylight. Ignorance is bliss (John 17:17).

The people who preach and teach the word of God in this period (500-1000) are never called “Catholics” or Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox; they are called Paulicians, Bulgarians, Paterines, Burgun­dians, Bogomiles, Armenians, Cathari, and other names. Whatever their theological deficiencies were and however short they may have come in mastering all of the doctrines of the New Testament, there are two things that none of them would do: they would not sprinkle babies, and they would not baptize an adult until he professed to have experienced the new birth. They rightly could be called “Baptists,” for it is the Baptists (now as then) who have always had these two peculiar beliefs about water baptism. As a matter of fact, every attempt by historians to prove they were not Baptists runs head on into a solid wall of evidence90 that cannot be broken through. If the term “Baptist” means a Bible believer who will not baptize babies and will not baptize adults till they are saved, then the most famous group of evangelical dissenters in the Dark Ages—the WALDENSES—were Baptists, for that is exactly what they believed and practiced.91

The Paulicians from the start were identified as a heretical sect by all good Catholics. To place the “ban” on them, they were associated with the famous heretics, “the Manichaeans,” founded by Manes (or Mani), a Persian, who was supposed to have started this “cult” in Persia

270 A.D. The main objection to the teaching of Manes was that had a more accurate exposition of Genesis 1:2 than the Gnostics (or a olics like Origen and Clement), and he recognized that there was . nic force in the world opposing all “kingdom spreaders. ” In the- in°‘7i *S rn*srePresented by Catholic historians as a Gnostic believing ^^ansm.’ All Catholic popes, archbishops, priests, monks, nuns, On t.. s’ and presidents reject the idea that Satan will bring in a kingdom As in tV3^ ^ev’ If y°u believe this, you are a “dualist.” "Para 1 C,a,Se Montanus, Mani was accused of professing to be the

ete (the Holy Ghost) promised by Christ in John 14-16. A care­

fill examination of his work shows that he professed nothing of the kind. However, Catholic historians believe that the Holy Ghost speaks only through their church; and therefore, if anyone but a member of the Cath­olic hierarchy professed to have any Biblical revelation (1 Cor. 12), he was “professing to be the Holy Ghost.” (For confirmation of this, see chapter 7, notes 41, 49, 50, and 52). Mani professed only that the Paraclete was IN him and spoke through him (Matt. 10:20). One might say that Mani’s attitude toward the Old Testament was definitely that of an infidel, but only if he believed the writings of Mani’s enemies. As in the case of the Montanists, Paulicians, Paterines, Bogomiles, Cathari, Novatians, and Donatists, the information on what the Manichaeans “believed” is supplied by Bible rejecting baby-sprinklers who resented everything that any Christian believed where it crossed their own traditions. The disputations with Mani, for example, are writ­ten in Latin (although the disputations were originally in Syriac)92 by an unknown author, while the material about the Manichaeans themselves were all written by an Egyptian from North Africa who idolized Origen’s school of philosophy at Alexandria. His name was Alexander, Bishop of Lycopolis, and even all of his information about Mani was second hand.93

The historian Beausobre thinks “Alexander” was nothing but a pagan philosopher; Tillemont thinks the same thing.94 A reader of the work called Of the Manichaeans would draw the same conclusion; this “oral tenuous” report would rival The Letter ofAristeas (the supposed evidence for a B.C. “Septuagint”) for the gas bag of the millennium.

The Disputation with Manes looks like the report of a Campbellite elder on a debate between himself and an Episcopalian.95 Manes was put to death (hung) in 275 A.D. for his speculative opinions about the nature of good and evil and his philosophical opinions about pre-Adarmc history. Nonetheless, he and his followers all professed that both Tes­taments were inspired, that Christ came from a Virgin, that He was God manifest in the likeness of human flesh, and that He died and was buried and rose again.96 Manes’s opponent (an unidentified Archela 1 us”) puts Galatians 1:9 on Mani on the grounds that Mani doesn t have a proper theological grasp of the nature of evil and good in to matter. Since this philosophical argument—the basis for all o I philosophical speculations of the Gnostics (300 B C.-300 A.D.)-- nothing to do with Galatians 1:9, we may presume that Arcq^^.,s was somewhat of a Gnostic heretic himself. The real objection to a teaching by the “orthodox” was much less complicated. You see»^"-| followers in the fourth and fifth centuries were notorious for

fiin of Catholic credulity and the anti-Biblical practices of “Catholics.”97 So, since the Paulicians were also “anti-Catholic,” they were (for pur­poses of plunder and murder) associated with this group (Manichaeans).

Philip Schaff aligns them with “radical, heretical sects.”98

The two books that associated the Paulicians with the Manichaeans were written by Photius" and Siculus (about 868 A.D.). According to their enemies (Photius and Siculus), the Paulicians received their name from two heretics in Samosata. Undoubtedly this is incorrect; obviously they were called “Paulicians” for the emphasis they laid on the Pauline epistles in opposition to the Roman Catholics, whose emphasis was never on the Pauline epistles (Matt. 16:16-18; John 20:23; Heb. 6:1-7; James 2:24). That is, they were Bible believing Christians who had a much better grasp of the New Testament than Origen, Cyprian, Clement, Papias, Eusebius, Jerome, or Augustine. The founder of this group (which Schaff calls a “sect”) was stoned to death in 684 A.D. on orders of the Greek Emperor Constantine Pogonauts (688-685). As a Bible believer, one could easily guess the location from whence this “sect” came: the Paulicians originated in Syria (Antioch, Acts 11:26) and spread throughout Asia Minor (see chapter 10, notes 4, 5, 8, 59, 93, 94). Theodora (a good, orthodox, Nicene Catholic) put a hundred thousand Paulicians to death by the sword, the hangman’s noose, and the flames.100 Congregations of Paulicians left Constantinople and aligned themselves politically with the Saracens (though not religiously). On the Arab fron­tier, the more militant among them joined the Moslems in attacks on Byzantine territory, which by this time (867 A.D.) was controlled by idol worshipping apostates (see chapter 13, notes 46-47): i.e., Greek Catholics.

Philip Schaff (following the Catholic party line) tells us that these radical heretics” taught “dualism,” a contempt for matter, that the Virgin Mary was not the “Mother of God” (chapter 11, note 71), that they preached Judaism rather than Christianity, and that they regarded | Mnon Peter as a false prophet.101 More cautious souls and more careful lnvestigators than Philip Schaff (Prov. 14:15) sense the “pig in the *T. e’ ^e Catholics had insisted on building their church on Satan "h\1On Peter’ Matt. 16:23); therefore, if anyone said anything against H^^ed Simon Peter,” the “Prince of Apostles” (as Christ did—Matt. Should mUSt be rePorte<J as rejecting everything Peter wrote; this I®- class>fy Paulicians as “heretics” on two counts: becaus C^'l'ng head of the Catholic church a false prophet (Satan) (see eh'* ° Cath°**c church was “The Prince of Apostles”

p Pter 10, notes 29-31), the “successor to Simon Peter."

2. Rejecting part of the Bible.

The attacks on the Paulicians are typical of fifteen centuries of slan­der against Bible believing Christians (see chapter 13-14).

However, as in the case of Pelagius (chapter 10, notes 34-41), no one will have to get involved in the lengthy discussions about the matter of “nature” or “dualism” to see what the real problem was. The real problem was that the Paulicians rejected the Catholic priesthood, the Catholic sacraments, the worship of relics and crosses, and they thought the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 was the Holy Spirit putting the believer into Christ: they were the Stamites and Bullingerites of their day. At their worst, they were at least five times as scriptural as any bishop or archbishop in the ruling church. Under severe persecution they moved into Bulgaria and the Balkan mountains102 and from thence to north Italy and Yugoslavia to produce Christians called Waldenses and Albigenses, of whom we shall speak later.

Neither were the “Manichaeans” completely eradicated in spite of the “Christianity” of Rome; they continued to teach and preach the Bible secretly in northern Italy, the home of the Paterines and Waldenses, and in southern France, the home of the Vaudois and Albigenses.103 The Paulicians were supposed to have originated with the conversion of a certain man named Constantine, who was a Manichaean at that time (560 A.D.). Some soul winning evangelist gave him a copy of New Testament manuscripts which contained the gospels and the epistles of Paul; naturally they were of the Syrian Byzantine family of manu­scripts (see chapter 3) instead of the Alexandrian family used by Jerome. It is instructive to note that only sixty years before this, the Philoxenian (Syriac) version of the New Testament was reproduced in this area by the Bishop of Hierapolis, whereupon he was denounced by the Emperor Justin (483-565) as a “Manichaean” and was banished to Thrace, where Greek Orthodox Catholics murdered him.104 Among other things, the Bishop of Hierapolis had committed an unpardonable blunder in his Syriac translation: he had translated “baptizo” as “amad,” which, in the Syriac Peshitto, means “TO IMMERSE. ”

The historical truth of Paulician teaching was that the Paulicians, from the time of Constantine (not “Connie the Great”) on, openyj condemned the philosophical speculations of the Manichaeans | complained of the injustice of having their Bible believing people asso ciated with Manes’s entire teaching.105 And, quite contrary to Scha ° opinion that the Paulicians baptized no one in water (the obvious n^j vative slander from a Catholic who was counting on water to save Robinson says106 that they baptized in water by immersion an

have mercy on the “heretic” who believes this!) baptized only adults who professed faith in Jesus Christ.107 Another name applied to them by the apostate Catholics of their day was ' ‘Acephali ’ ’ (headless), which was the Catholic way of mocking them for not recognizing Peter and his “vicars” as the visible “HEAD” of the church. Unlike the Bible rejecting popes, they believed what the apostle Paul said about the “HEAD of the church” (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). If this conflicted with Peter (Matt. 16:16-18), they had “robbed Peter to pay Paul.” Hence, their Catholic adversaries accused them of saying that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not inspired: a likely story.

The Paulicians in Italy were called Paterini or Cathari; in France they were called Bulgarians, Publicans, and Albigenses (see chapter 10, notes 72, 89-95).

Milan and Turin in north Italy (where all the Lombards were) had continual trouble with these “dissenters” and “schismatics,” for the Novatians (the fourth century Cathari) had migrated there from other parts following the Council of Nicaea. Northern Italy gave them the names of Paterines and Fratracelli (as the Paulicians), and they arose

in great strength during the pontificate of Stephen II (725-757). They all taught that a man was saved by grace through faith before baptism, that the Law of Moses was not New Testament doctrine for New Tes­tament practices, that a church was only a local assembly, and that the baptism of infants was HERESY.108 In short, they were anti-Catholic BAPTISTS of the most vicious kind. Their writings would have to be classified as “hate literature” by all of the “news media.”

Atto, the Bishop of Vercillia, complained of these people109 in 946 A.D. At that time they were very numerous and conspicuous in Milan, where they flourished for nearly two hundred years. These “Paterines” considered the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers to be “the cor- nipters of Christianity.”110 They called the cross an “abomination of esolation,” and they said that it was the mark of the beast.111 They had their greatest religious liberty during the reign of the Gothic tribes

Lombards, who were classified by the Catholics as “Arians.”112 I hJ Were nOt dePrived of their property until Charlemagne and Clovis e ped the pope out of his “problems with heretics” by attacking both G«ths and Lombards.

I u European center, then, for Bible believing Christianity makes WestPSlde d°wn crescent, with the right tip in Moravia and Silesia (the left Gzechoslovakia and south border of Poland) and the

surveP °n t*1e West *3an'c t^ie Rh’ne River in southern France. Map rs will see immediately that the area is heavily wooded and moun­

tainous: it is the mountaineers that give Rome such a hard time. (Freiheit im Walde!) Bible believing Christianity lies north of Rome and south of Munich (in Germany) and Lyons (in France).113 Northern Italy, lying next to southern France and southern Germany (Austria), was “infested” (that would be the Catholic term for it) with Burgundians who came from Germany to settle in Vienne and Lyons,114 Novatians who came from Italy and Africa, Donatists who came from Africa, Paulicians and Bogomiles who came from Asia Minor, and finally Albigenses who came from their residence in Albi, a city about forty-two miles north­east of Toulouse, France.

In addition to this, Bible believers in northern Spain (the Pyrenees Mountains) showed up who later were identified with the Waldenses. Many of the believers who left Spain and crossed the Pyrenees were called “Vaudois” when they settled in southern France.115 The apostate Catholics (500-1000 A.D.) invented as many names for each group of Christians as they could, but all of them were related. For example, the ancient “Euchites” we mentioned earlier (chapter 6) begin to pop up all over Europe by such names as “Bogards” (a Dutch term), “Beguines,” “Picards” (a term from Germany and Bohemia), and “Beghards” (a Rhineland term); but all of these terms mean basically “a person of prayer” or “persons of prayer.”116 The Paterines in north Italy were from Bulgaria: that is, they are the ‘ ‘Bulgarians ’ ’ of the fourth and fifth centuries (chapter 9, note 91).

Going back to the time of Nicolas I (“the greatest pope since Gregory the Great”117), we remember that he had trouble with a nation­alistic bishop in Rheims, France, called Hincmar. Ostensibly the trouble was with a rival bishop (the Bishop of Soissons) who was confined to the “slammer” for “insufficient reasons.”118 However, when Nicolas went to bat for his incarcerated bishop, he certainly had more in mind than “sufficient” or “insufficient” reasons for arrest. The real trouble.. was that the jailbird’s adversary in that area was Hincmar; Hincmar was not a “good” Catholic: he had renounced infant baptism119 an thus could almost be called an “Albigensian.” Mosheim, the churc I historian, says that “no point is more strongly maintained than this, that the term Albigenses, in its more confined sense, was used to denote those heretics who inclined toward the Manichaean system and w o were originally and otherwise known by the denomination of Catharis , Publicans, Paulicians, and BULGARIANS. This appears evident | many incontestable authorities.”120 Of the Paulicians, Archbishop says, “These worthy clergymen affirmed that there was no virtue capa of sanctifying the soul in the Eucharist or in baptism. 1

Another name plastered on these groups of Bible believing Chris­tians—who actually composed a unified body of Bible believers—was Valdenses. Peter of Lyons (south France) adopted their teaching and was called “Valdus” after that time.122 Their followers in Lyons, France, were sometimes called “Lionists,” and Reiner Sacco and Theodore Belvedre both admit that their orthodoxy goes back to the remotest time, perhaps even back to the apostolic age.123 Beza links Lyons with Biblical Christianity when he notes that the Waldenses were the relics of the pure, primitive Christian churches; some of them were called “The Poor Men of Lyons.”

We shall have occasion to speak of these groups of Baptists (or Puritans) later in much more detail: the Waldenses, Cathari, and Albi­genses in particular. It will suffice for now to review the basic truths that Biblical revelation gives us in regard to these groups and the light that the Bible sheds upon how and why they were persecuted and misrepresented.

1. Any group of Christians connected with any local assembly that rejected infant baptism was a target of the Roman Catholic church for annihilation. Mass murder in the Philadelphia period of church history was carried out (see chapters 15-16) because of this doctrinal issue.

2. Any group of Christians connected with any local assembly that would not baptize an adult until he professed faith in Christ was another target, for this was a public renunciation of the effectiveness (efficacy) of infant baptism in the Roman church.

3. Any local assembly after 325 A.D. that would not subscribe openly to the decrees and canons of the church councils was subject to STATE action.

4. By 500 A.D. any local assembly or pastor who refused to sprin­kle babies was subject to DEATH (Theodosius, 413). This became an official law for the entire empire under Charlemagne in 789 A.D.

5. By 800 A.D. any local assembly or pastor who refused to submit auth°rity of the Roman pope or archbishop in ALL matters of

31 and practice was in danger of armed attacks by military forces

r the Holy Roman Emperor” (in this case, “Charlie the Great”).

• By 1000 A.D. every Bible believing Christian in Europe was ■^®ger of imprisonment, banishment, or death if he was caught one religious'"^ s s’de against the Catholic bishop’s side in any church’’ 8*Ve *mPression that the “one, holy, apostolic, mother

“gates” XX^ a rock “before the powers of hell,” etc., (by altering

; ° hell to “powers”—see the NASV) and that all her enemies

were just splinter groups scattered about by heretical schisms, the Bible rejecting Papists and Reformers (particularly the literary men) invented names for Bible believing Anabaptists: Puritans, Bogomiles, Lionists, Vaudois, Paulicians, Manichaeans, Priscillians, Sabellians, Arians, Novatians, Donatists, Burgundians, Bulgarians, Albigenses, Waldenses, Paterines, and Cathari, and eventually Bible believers were called Quak­ers, Anabaptists, Puritans, Pietists, Baptists, Dispensationalists, and Fundamentalists. That is, real Bible believers are always split up into smaller groups by the historians so that no one will think that a really orthodox “Christian” would believe the Bible was the word of God and was the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The attack then, as now, was on the absolute authority of the BOOK (Gen. 3:1).124

During the next intermission we shall examine the lives and the times of these Dark Ages witnesses, giving some attention to the rise of one of the world’s greatest religions—Muhammadanism—and the trouble that it caused among the idolatrous Catholics, Also, we will examine the continual progress of the apostasy within the Catholic and Greek churches as both of them continued to incorporate and tolerate pagan practices within their own communions on the theory that New Testament Christianity was not fully developed when the New Testa­ment was completed and needed to “progress” and “grow” into a New Testament rejecting body of religious politicians.

Since unity under a dictator will always quicken the pace of things (Hitler, for example: 1933-1945) because of the efficiency that is attained in such a system (Roosevelt, for example: 1933-1945), the unification of Europe under a dictator (the pope) produced the fascist arm of Chris­tianity: Roman Catholicism. This explains why all western dictators come from Catholic backgrounds (Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Kennedy, Napoleon, Stalin, Franco, Castro, DeGaulle, Batista, et al.). With the regimentation of liturgy and laity under an iron fist which controlled the churches, the tempo was speeded up: the tempo of Bible rejecting apostasy. With a unified church to work in, a unified papal hierarchy to work through, and a unified military organization to carry out his will, Satan had no trouble injecting into the professing church of Jesus Christ enough leaven (Matt. 13:33) to float a loaf of bread. Since e God of the Bible is the God of history, we need not suppose that e Almighty observed all of this corruption without responding. I

His response, after sending the Vikings to ravage most of the pean shores, was to raise up a demon-possessed epileptic125 (Rom' meJj for the purposes of teaching the Greek and Roman Catholics that so times the heathen are more Biblical than those who profess to e

guardians of the scripture.”126 Mohammedans don’t use statues as an “aid to worship,” and they don’t drink intoxicating liquor. The demo­niac, German fanatic that God raised up (Rom. 9:17)—don’t fuss about the language just because you have denied the scripture—between 1923-1945, to carry out Jeremiah 52 and Deuteronomy 32, lived and died in Germany in good standing127 with the church that professed to be ‘‘the guardian of the scriptures.”
































Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

“If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent per­verting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.” Ecclesiastes 5:8

When all of the Roman Catholic practices and beliefs from 200 to 1000 A.D. are amassed into one lump of leaven, it produces a for­midable loaf; and many of them were in operation a century before receiving official approval. Remembering that the infallible rule for settling all Biblical matters in the Roman church is “how can we keep power and unity?" (chapter 10, notes 50-51), one can see how any anti-Biblical thing could be adopted, or even promoted, as long as it did not cause disunity or impotence in the political and hierarchical struc­ture of “Holy Mother church.” For this reason, barbarian converts were allowed not only to keep certain pagan practices (notes 6, 33, 52) but were encouraged to adopt additional pagan practices which they hitherto knew nothing about (note the ludicrous inscription on the tomb of the Archbishop of Canterbury; chapter 12, note 28).

By 312 A.D. prayers for the dead and making the “sign of the cross were officially ruled by the leaders to be orthodox practices for good Catholics. By 320 A.D. candles came into use in the services;

375 veneration for angels and saints; and by 394 the mass became ? celebration” (the word means “to rejoice”) of the death of Christ instead of a memorial (1 Cor. 11:26). By 431 A.D. worship of Mary

considered to be New Testament Biblical Christianity (Council of f P esus^’ ar,d by 596 the “hoods” (Catholic clergy) were dressing dif- or^p *^e P60115 (Catholic laity). The title of “Universal Bishop” Chri °Pe WaS ®*ven to P°Pes after 611 A.D., and as early as 709 onCeSulanS Were suPPosed to kiss his feet. The crosses and images that

■j' ° been used as an “aid to worship” (contemporary Catholic

propaganda) became objects of worship by 788 A.D., and by 850 the priests were mixing salt with water to perform various acts of North African black magic. Bells were baptized in 956 A.D., and by 1000 Catholics were fasting on Friday and observing “Lent.” The mass became an obligatory (go to mass or lose your head) “sacrifice” by 1000 A.D.1

The number of anti-scriptural names, titles, items, rites, and objects that enter into the Christianity of the harlot church are simply incom­prehensible. To give the reader some idea of the anti-church history involved when one is discussing Roman Catholicism and the anti-Biblical nature of her “Christianity,” we present a brief list of Roman Catholic terms used by the “true faith.” They are supposed to be the logical (and spiritual) development of the New Testament church by the Holy Ghost: clergy, laity, pope, pontiff, Vicar of God, cardinal, prelate, abbot, superior, nuncio, legate, dean, canon, cleric, licentiate, rector, holy orders, mendicant, curia, curator, archdeacon, confessor, stole, cincture, red hat, pectoral cross, acolyte, nun, monk, friar, zucchetto, tonsure, habit, purificator, host, maniple, surplice, amice, soutane, rochet, flabellum,- censer, viaticum, ciborium, canon law, bull, requiem mass, novena, offertory, rubric, introit, litany, etc., etc.

This is about one-half of the list.

Catholic forgeries are so plentiful in the first ten centuries of Rome’s defection from the truth that they couldn’t be listed. In the second cen­tury, Catholics were already forging the names of Clement, Dionysius, Linus, and Barnabas onto documents. In the third century they forged the names of Cyprian, Zephrynus, Hippolytus, Fabian, Origen, and Marcellinus on documents,2 and in the fifth century the names of Sylvester, Athanasius, Constantine, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Damascus, Liberius, Hilary, Augustine, and Jerome.3 The standard Catholic practice was to attach the name of a well-known man (especially a “devout and “godly” man) to a false teaching so that the “saint’s” endorsement of a lie proved it was the truth (see, for example, the correspondence by John R. Rice or Bob Jones, III, on the AV, 1970-1980).4 Many other forgeries are found listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The appalling intrigues and immorality of these “princes o ® church” who came from the “Prince of the Apostles” became so we^ known and so despised in the eyes of intelligent people in ^urO^ pagans and Catholics as well as Christians—that by the tenth cci the average scholar in Europe didn’t care who was pope or '■'* professed to believe. As Luther said later, due to the influence anverage tices of the Catholic church counterfeiting Christianity, the a 1

Pope Paul I (757-767) wrote to Pepin the Short (chapter 12), “Rejoice, most happy prince. By the power of your arms your spiritual MOTHER, the Catholic church, has triumphed over HER enemies.”6 “Enemies” of the church (see chapter 9) were any Bible believing Chris­tians, as well as any church burning, monastery looting “Vandals.” After the destruction of the Frankish dynasties by Charles the Fat (884-887), the neighboring princes placed on the pontifical throne men favorable to their own personal interest and ambitions.7 Stephen VI (896-897) dug up the dead body of one of his political opponents (Formosus), propped the corpse up in a chair, and conducted a mock trial, condemning Formosus as a “heretic.” Then he cut off some fin­gers from the corpse and threw it into the Tiber River.8 He reaped what he sowed: Stephen VI was strangled in prison (897). A little later Leo V (903) was forcibly booted out of St. Peter’s chair and died in prison.9 When Sergius III hopped into the high chair (Peter’s throne is supposed to be exalted above every throne on earth), he took pity on two “Vicars of Christ” who were languishing in the clink and had them both put to death.10 John XIII (965-972) hanged his enemies," and all that the Catholic writers can say about the “Holy Father” of 1003-1009 (John XVIII) was that he was a disgrace to the chair of Peter; “he was a youthful libertine, living a dissolute life.”12

In addition to being plagued by these carnal, hypocritical scala­wags who professed “apostolic succession” as the representatives of God on this earth,13 devout Catholics were also plagued by having to learn the names of over a thousand saints who had been “canonized”

since the first century. These saints neatly replaced the former gods oi Rome and Greece which were found in their “mystery religions” (chapter 7, note 23).14 Following the practice of the pagan Romans who killed Christians in the Coliseum (chapter 4), the Roman Catholics of 500-1000 A.D. got them a saint for the hearth, a saint for the bath-

a sa*nt for the camel, a saint for healing, a saint for the dog, for traveling, a saint for poverty, etc., till their houses, filled ** gods,” looked like a joss shelf in a Hindu temple. “Patron saints” et^ame as popular or more popular than Jove, Zeus, Jupiter, Diana, C p e Exod. 20:3 and comments in that commentary.)

,ut since none of this was detrimental to UNITY and POWER, F- If h h ’ 3 matter fact)> no P°Pe would take an open stand against allie h d°ne m’ght have endangered his head with his military tan F ' K barbarians, who had as many gods (Zeus, Saturn, Thor, Wo- No pJ1C a’ EHe Woman, etc.) as Carter had liver pills (1930-1945).

F” said anything publicly about Charlemagne's four marriages

any more than any pope (1940-1945) dared peep about the concentra­tion camps in Germany and Poland operated by ten loyal sons of “Holy Mother church” (Eicke, Kramer, Palitzsch, Hoess, Stangl, Koch, Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, and Diels).15 Silence is consent. Where the first consideration is political expediency (see Nixon, 1973; or Carter, 1978), standards of truth and righteousness are not to be examined too closely.

In the twentieth century, when Bob Jones University wishes to main­tain the POWER and UNITY of its own institution, it teaches publicly (in print) that there is no issue of right or wrong involved in the Greek texts of the Bible used by translators.16 No examination is made of these texts touching the truth or righteousness: Bob Jones University lumps the Greek texts of Westcott and Hort, Aland, Metzger, Erasmus, Beza, Tischendorf, Weiss, Stephanus, Lachmann, Griesbach, and Elzevir into the same group, although this is not RIGHT, nor is it SO.'1

In Jesuit theology the end can always justify the means17 because the church, by virtue of its Biblical perversion (its interpretation of Matt. 16:16-18), had to persevere by force or give up her claim: she could not persevere by faith or prayer or the word of God. Therefore, Unholy Mother Whore had to make UNITY and POWER the first major con­sideration in approaching or dealing with any and every religious, social, political, or spiritual issue that arose.

Two issues arose immediately; both were connected with the issue of issues among any groups of people of any degree of learning, in any culture on any continent, in any period of the world’s history: WHAT IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY?

The issue was now raised by Moslems and Saracens who had accepted the Koran as the final authority in all matters of faith and prac­tice. They had followed the leadership of a Jew hating Arabian who had married a nine year old girl when he was fifty-three years old. His last utterances were, “Lord, destroy the JEWS and the Christians....^ Gabriel come close to me....”19 He received his “call'’ from Gabriel, whom Schaff in his ignorance calls an “Archangel,"20 when he went to Mt. Hira to commit suicide. J

Mohammed (570-632 A.D.) had regular visits from angels (2 Cor 11:10-14); often he growled like a camel, foamed at the mouth, I streamed with perspiration during his frequent epileptic fits.-1 He Pr I pared and dictated the Koran, which became the most powerfu riv | of the Bible in the eastern hemisphere. Obviously the Koran lac s j major features necessary for any inspired book to have:

1. It carefully avoids making any prophecies on anything —.♦ found in the Old Testament. That is. the writer, thoug

ing himself “the prophet” and “no prophet but him” (see the Shehada: ‘‘and Mohammed is his prophet.”), was unable to predict one single word concerning one single historical event beyond his time not men­tioned in Daniel, Isaiah, and the Old Testament prophets. He was a sort of Jeanne Dixon without her boa constrictor. Mohammed majored in “angels of light” (2 Cor. 11:14): as a prophet he was a consummate


2. The Koran had only one writer, completing his work in less than thirty years, whereas the Bible had over twenty-four writers writing two thousand years apart and writing on three continents. Collusion between the various writers of the Bible would be impossible; collusion between Mohammed and himself would certainly be a possibility, one will have to admit.

3. There is no absolute assurance of salvation for anyone in the Koran unless they get killed in battle while slaughtering Jews or Christians.22

4. According to the Koran, no one needs the sacrifice of Christ for atonement of sins; there is no redemption in Christ’s blood; and as a matter of Koran doctrine, Christ didn’t even die on the cross (Koran, Sura 4); he was raptured with his Roman Catholic mother (“The Assumption of Mary”).

Salvation for Mohammedans (as for all Catholics) is by works: fast­ing, praying, and alms giving. Polygamy and slavery are both condoned in the Moslem religion. Nevertheless, Moslems are “the children of God” according to every Roman Catholic pope in the twentieth century who believes (as Masons do) in the “Fatherhood of God and the Brother­hood of Man. ” The trick in 1980 is how to get a Bible believing Christian to keep company with such “brethren” (John 1:12). This is exactly the trouble the popes had in the Dark Ages when it came to “getting along with the barbarians and Vikings and the unsaved membership their pagan local assemblies. Unity was far more important to them an Biblical truths or sound doctrine.23

Mohammed is buried in Mecca (Al Kaaba), which contains the Ara- lan Blarney stone of south Ireland. In this case it is a black stone called th el-Assouad” (the heavenly stone), something like “the image

e 1 down from Jupiter” (see Acts 19:35 and comments in that com- It is kissed perpetually, as the Blarney stone, by pilgrims, wore aS P*'gr*ms hissed the black St. Peter at Rome24 until its foot "the Luther, a Bible literalist in these matters, called Mohammed med w'1StllOrn °f Satan,” but when asked about whether Moham-

pOpe w°rse than the pope, Luther gave the Biblical answer: the [ * worSe (Matt. 24:5; 2 Thess. 2:4; John 17:11).

After Mohammed’s death (632 A.D.) his religion was established by bloodshed. Not to be outdone by the popes, he had raised an army of 114,000 Mussulmen who also fought under Abu Bakr, his successor. They destroyed the Empire of the Sassanids, and in fifteen years they took Syria, Palestine, Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, Armenia, and Egypt. They were nearly indomitable because every swordsman in the army had been deceived by the devil into thinking that if he was “killed in action’’ he would get an immediate passport into a wine garden and would be supplied with several dozen ravishing belly dancers who were virgins.25 This produced what might best be described as “high morale’’ among the troops. They destroyed Carthage in 697 A.D. and the Berbers in North Africa were “converted’’ to Muhammadanism. Three Cal­iphates were set up: Baghdad, Cairo, and Cordova (Spain). The Moslems had passed from Africa into Spain, conquering the Visigoths who had settled there. Tarik landed near Gibraltar and found that the Jews there

were ready to aid them in invading Spain, as the Jews by then had been persecuted by Roman Catholics for over five hundred years. The Mos­lems nearly conquered all of Spain but were defeated at the decisive Battle of Tours (732) by Charles Martel, the pope’s errand boy (see chapter 10, note 84).

The Moslems attacked Sicily and Italy and then attacked Rome (846 A.D.). They were expelled permanently in 915 but went back to rule over all of the pope’s “holy” cities, relics, and associations (Antioch, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Tyre, Sidon, etc.), and then they enticed the papa to “come and get them” if he dared. Pope Urban II dared. To satisfy his own ego (and misdirect the anti-papal forces at work in his day), Pope Urban II started a war that cost the lives of 500,000 of Europe’s finest young men. We call this war “the Crusades,” from the Latin crux (crus), or “cross” (see chapter 7, notes 1-4). That is, under the*, sign of the CURSE, “the curse that was causeless” (Prov. 26:2) came, and the “good” that came from it was used by church historians as proof that “all things work together for good.” But all of this lies! in the realm of anti-church history, so there is no point in quoting t e church’s constitution (see chapter 3) to prove a point. There is no I Testament church involved in any of these things. They are nothing u the malevolent outworkings of history under the “god of this vvor . (2 Cor. 4:4), who owns the kingdoms of this world (Luke 4;^ un J the permissive will of God (Matt. 28:18), who will allow this sysl©M to run downhill (2 Tim. 4:1-6) until Satan takes his seat as Got 1 nate” (2 Thess. 2:1-13) at Rome and controls the United Nations M there. This is ANTI-church history.

The second contender for Roman authority, besides Mohammed, was the Patriarch of Constantinople. For a long time he and the apostate bishop of Rome had been “jockeying for position’’ and trying to check­mate each other. Since both churches had returned to a wholesale pagan­ism by 800 A.D., the contest was more of a political contest to see who could dominate the most people, rather than a spiritual contest to see who was Biblical: neither group was Biblical, and both groups were persecuting believers who were. Of course, the eastern church had to be more Biblical than Rome by virtue of its location (near Antioch of Syria, chapter 2), its superior Bible manuscripts (chapter 3), its better preachers (see Chrysostom, chapter 11), and its lack of political power (chapter 12, notes 84-85), compared with the political power of the Roman Bishop. Rome and Constantinople did agree on the following


1. It was all right to worship images (787)—thinly disguised by hypocrites in both churches as “aids to worship” and “reverence to the people represented by the images,” etc.

2. Two final conflicting authorities: the Bible and tradition.

3. The worship of dead saints and pictures of dead saints—thinly disguised by hypocrites in both congregations as “venerating,” etc.

4. Salvation by faith and works.

5. Baptismal regeneration and priestly absolution by divine authority.

That is, by 800 A.D. Greek Catholics and Roman Catholics were first rate pagan idolaters by all the standards laid down in the New Tes­tament: any New Testament.

However, they disagree about some other things:

1 • The doctrine of transubstantiation (turning hootch and bread into Christ’s body and “unbloody” blood) was not as explicit in the east (800) as it was in the west, nor was the doctrine of purgatory.

& 2. The Greeks allowed free distribution and translation of the Bible: no Roman ever did.

3. No Greek Orthodox would accept the universal infallibility and au ority of any Bishop of Rome: the Patriarchs of Rome, Constanti- • P e’. Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem were all of equal authority *n their own eyes.

' • In the Greek “Eucharist” the church members got to drink a ltlUor- In Rome the priest saved all the “shinny” for himself, fabl r 0 eaSt no onc t>elieved that Mary was conceived sinless (the the Immaculate Conception).

and the^***00 tO differed ah°ut the dates for keeping Easter,

K Urch at Constantinople was so constantly exposed to real Bible

believing “schismatics” that she never could get as far off base as Rome. As we have noted, the truth of the gospel goes up and around Rome through Bulgaria and the Balkans: it does not touch Rome at any point (see chapter 10, note 89) before, during, or after the Dark Ages.

The first serious rupture between the two apostate churches occurred when Photius and Nicolas collided. Nicolas, you will remember, was the papa who could not put up with Hincmar’s views on infant sprinkling (chapter 12, note 119). When Nicolas, the Bishop of Rome, tried to unseat Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, he took on a wildcat (Roman Synod, 863). Photius told him (Encyclical Letter) that the whole western church under Rome and under Nicolas was heretical. Thus the Greek Patriarch “stole the fire” from the “heretics” in his own area:

the Euchites, Bulgarians, Paulicians, and others, who had been calling Roman Catholics heretics for a long time.

Although Photius was imprisoned (867 A.D.) by the pro-Catholic political authorities in his area, he got out (877) and immediately con­vened a council in November, 879, which lasted until March, 880 (the Eighth Ecumenical Council). In this council he established that the Roman pope was a heretic and should be anathematized for inserting the word '‘filoque ” into the Nicene Creed.26 Believing that “one good turn deserves another,” Pope John VHI of Rome solemnly cursed Photius in return; it was a sort of sadistic application of the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12).

There followed a long series of divorce-and-marriage intrigues, diverse dethronings of emperors and popes (see chapters 13-14), and anathemas hurled about like confetti (with about the same effect), but the history is too long and cumbersome to relate. Since it belongs to the realm of anti-church history (see Durant’s work), it is wise to skip it. Nicolas, Mysticus, Pope Sergius, Michael Cerularius, Pope Leo IX, Pope Innocent III, Michael Palaeologus, Bonaventura, John VII, Dionysius of Sardis, and various councils (Ferrara, 1439; Lyons, 1274, etc.) are involved, but the end result of involvement was quite clear, the bottom dropped out. If there had ever been any hope of reconciling the two apostate communions before 1054 A.D., that year finished their


When the Crusaders finally sailed through Constantinople (or any , where in Asia Minor, for that matter), they came as sprinkled ^este?1^ representing a sinless “Queen of Heaven” (Mary) and an infal i “pope.” The Greek church in Constantinople and Asia Minor. W I had looked to them for help from the Moslems, tolerated them on^ as unwanted despots from a foreign government. The Greek churc

the Roman church remained “at loggerheads” with each other for nine centuries, and then when Rome failed after World War II to reinstate the Catholic Hapsburg dynasty to the old Austria-Hungarian Empire, she gave up the situation in the Balkans and eastern Europe where the Greek Orthodox church had held sway. Adopting the Communist approach, the cardinals in Rome installed two red popes (Giuseppe Roncalli and Giovanni Montini27) and began to work with Soviet Russia in an attempt to seat the pope on the rostrum of the United Nations Assembly. The church that the Communists would tolerate would be a Polish, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian church (Wurmbrand and Popov were from Rumania and Bulgaria) that would allow Soviet agents to enter its communion as priests and bishops. This was accomplished be­tween 1960-1980 with little or no trouble. Rome has always been willing to go along with anything if she could retain her UNITY and POWER (see chapter 10, note 51). Consequently, Pope Paul VI fell at the feet of the Greek Metropolitan (Meliton of Chalcedon) in January, 1977, in the Sistine Chapel at Rome and got the Greek Orthodox leader to recognize him as a SAINT.28 Both men were under the domination of the Communist Party.

With ecclesiastical fights going on between the east and the west, the Saracens running all over the southwest and southeast, and the Vikings running all over the northwest, about the only safe place in the “Holy Roman Empire” between 500-1000 A.D. would have been Spitsbergen or Madagascar.

Excommunication was practiced: this meant exclusion from taking the “sacraments.”29 Bishops could excommunicate anyone except a pope, and only a pope could excommunicate a bishop: actually the pope was sinless and could not be excommunicated by ANYONE (at least, that was “canon law”). Popes were evidently liable to imprisonment and strangulation by fellow popes (see note 9), at least one or two of them. Excommunication in those days was a fearful thing, for since all Catholics believed in their dread superstition that water baptism (baby agfmkling) and the continual partaking of the Eucharist were essential Of getting to heaven, their souls would be literally damned to hell if y were “excommunicated” permanently. Such are the beliefs of

(head °f the HEW in America in 1979) and the Kennedy family

)• Popes were quite liberal with their damns when they felt like Of nin£ somebody. Benedict (1012-1024) put some damns on robbers 28-3? naSter*es ^at wou'd make the Deuteronomic anathemas (Deut. s°uls d °- more t^lan g°°d adv*ce: "accursed in their bodies,

» e ivered to torture.. .let them be damned with the damned.. .let

them be accursed...let them be accursed with those who lie damned in hell...let them be accursed in the daytime and in the nighttime,” which is followed by a curse on what they eat, what they wear, what they drink, and what they do, awake or asleep.30 It would seem that popes are characterized by mouths that are full of “cursing and bitterness’’ (Rom. 3:14), and although today they dare not hurl anath­emas about (say, 1920-1980 A.D.), they resort to “good words and fair speeches” (Rom. 16:18). The anathema given above is a greater excommunication than simply getting run off of the church grounds. The Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) anathematized the Arians, while the Council of Trent (1564) pronounced over 124 curses on every Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Episcopalian in both hemi­spheres, plus every living Buddhist, Mohammedan, and Hindu.

The INTERDICT was a political lever used to pry a king off a throne if he didn’t submit to the Roman Pontiff in political or economic matters. It was carried out by the local priests, who were (and still are) subversive agents who have sworn allegiance to a foreign government, no matter what nation they may have infiltrated.

The interdict was a chain-of-command thing, where all the priests in a given area (sometimes only a village, at other times a large city, and in some cases a nation) closed the cathedral doors and cut off the sacraments from everyone—thereby temporarily damning all the people in that area because the sacraments (in every nihil obstat Catholic cate­chism) are said to be the “means of grace” and are essential to the salvation of the soul.31 Only baptism and extreme unction could be per­formed under an interdict (and some authors say that extreme unction was denied), while the mass and the rites of marriage and burial were withheld. All Catholics had a deadly fear of not being buried in a “Cath­olic” graveyard. This gave the local populace a half-completed salvation; that is, a washing away of original sin but no “mass” to take care of daily and weekly sins. To soften the blow, a death bed repentance was allowed which might, or might not, work if the priest could get to you in time (extreme unction). “Quick Henry, the flit!”

Hincmar of Laon, France, put an interdict on his diocese in 86. but the old adult baptizer Hincmar of Rheims (chapter 12, note 1 )»l who gave Nicolas so much trouble (chapter 12, note 118) remov I and said that it was “not Christian.” Gregory VII laid the inteidict O| the whole nation of Scotland in 1180 A.D. because the Scots had a papal nuncio (a bishop) out of the country and told him to go ^oie his papers somewhere else.32 Innocent III put an interdict on the nation of France (1211) because King Philip was living with a con

(see chapter 12, note 5)—at least that is how the old pious hypocrite (Innocent) put it.

When one finds popes terribly upset about marriage, abortions, and divorce, it is usually because someone has married or divorced the wrong person, politically: a wrong marriage or divorce (or an abortion) can cause a decrease in church membership or weaken the church’s power (power and unity, remember?) in that area. When it comes down to actual moral convictions about matters of sex, nothing could be more absurd than a bachelor pope whose first concern is maintaining a majority of votes in a country for his political ambitions. Catholic priests don’t have to pay debts, according to Pope Urban IV,” they can alibi steal­ing,34 and they can commit adultery on occasion, according to Popes Sergius III, John X, John XI, John XII, John XVII, and John XVIII.35 A priest does not break his vow of chastity by adultery.36 Third and fourth marriages were tolerated in the Catholic church where they had a need for unity or power,37 and fornication could be justified in some instances, if the end justified the means.38

The greatest thing about the interdict from the standpoint of Biblical Christianity was that it forced political rulers (barons and kings) to use their police forces and armies to kill or imprison Bible believing Chris­tians under their jurisdiction. The European ruler was faced with the choice of having his own subjects rebel against him—for they would naturally blame him for the closed church doors and lack of “sacra­ments”—or he could obey the pope and kill anyone the pope told him to kill. Popes very often encouraged rebellion against kings,39 and in some cases encouraged assassinations (“for the glory of God,” of course) to get a ruler out of the way who either would not tax his people for church profit or wouldn’t kill Christians.40

In a church state set-up (see Dan. 2-3) with the church in the position of final authority (see chapter 10, note 51), a noble, baron, king, ambas­sador, prince, or elector could be forced under pain of revolution, assas­sination, or damnation to kill anyone the popes wanted killed. That is,

Roman church by 900 A.D. had become a religious Mafia of Professional killers engaged in staying in office. As we have said before, g^all the history of such a Cosa Nostra “church history” is to stretch -imagination beyond its limits. There is nothing in the history of the

the cardinals, the Vatican, or the papal church that resembles of'book "St^’ we use as a guideline and register instead

sins ifU1 and J°hn VIII were very generous about remitting venial

e culprit died in action fighting for them.41 Penance was taught

to the tune of salvation by works, for there was not absolution of small sins until the penitent had done the required good works; naturally these good works would be determined by the supreme standard for goodness in the church: its own unity and power. Peter Damiani recommended self-whipping (flagellation)42 as a means of paying for one’s sins: so did the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18).

Peter popularized the idea that you would learn the Psalms better if someone lashed you on the back with a whip one hundred times every time you read a Psalm. A real Sunday school teacher could sport fifteen thousand lashes by the time he had read the book through once.43 Peter always believed in “moderation” (as any good Catholic), so he cautioned against whipping yourself and limited a good day’s “Bible study” to four thousand strokes by someone else: that is, reading forty Psalms. This “evangelistic practice” was adopted by Dominicans and Francis­cans and passed on to the people who believed in “Orthodox Catholi­cism.” Armies of penitents ranged across Germany, Italy, and England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries stripped to the waist and belting each other, with leather thongs.44

As a substitute for “doing penance” (taking pilgrimages, spinning the rosary, losing at bingo, lighting candles, jacking up the priest’s offer­ing, etc.), filthy lucre entered as a “propitiation.” From this came the practice of buying and selling indulgences with money. At first this, innocently enough, simply meant that if you couldn’t walk to Lourdes on your knees because of lack of time, or if you couldn’t beat yourself to a pulp because of poor physical conditioning, you could buy your way out by putting a little “moola” in the pot. However, this rapidly and rabidly developed into the business that drove Martin Luther to attack Tetzel (1517), for sinners got to the place where they could con­tinue sinning cheerfully as long as they had enough money from liquor sales and bingo tables to pay the piper when he showed up: the “piper was a Catholic monk or priest.

Urban ZZat the Council of Clermont (1095) offered full satisfaction for sins for anyone who would fight in Palestine to regain it from ,e “infidels.” Thus European Crusaders and eastern Saracens collide m battle, both carrying with them the Satanic impression that salvat&IK from hell was conditioned on killing someone who disagreed with leaders—both of whom rejected the Bible. Satan has not lost his o? on this earth one time, and he will not lose it until Revelation and then not completely until Revelation 20:10. .

Pope John XIII, in the meantime, was baptizing bells and ca them JOHN.45 (Heeere’s Johnny!)

Festivals had been set up (1 Peter 4:3)—to depart from the New Testament as far as possible (Prov. 30:6). The festival of “All Saints” was introduced into the west by Pope Boniface IV; this remarkable “Christian” festival was held on May 13 to commemorate the dedication of the Pantheon in Rome, built by Agrippa and dedicated to Jupiter.*6 On May 13 it was “cleansed and restored” and then dedicated to “the ever Virgin Mary.” That is, the feast was transferred from a pagan god to a pagan goddess. Later on the festival was moved up to the first of November. The festival of “All Souls” next showed up as a sort of Sunday supplement to “All Saints.” It took place the day following (Nov. 2) and was supposed to be a help in arousing the living saints to mourning over the departed saints who were still in purgatory. The festival of Michael the Archangel now showed up (Sept. 29), and all three festivals were run into a lineup with Easter, Halloween, Christmas (Col. 2:16), and eventually Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Shrove Tues­day, Armistice Day, Ash Wednesday, Groundhog Day, Good Friday, Bad Saturday, Chocolate Sunday, Monday, or Always, etc.

Contemporaneously with these festivals the dollies began to show up. The Empresses Irene and Theodora in the east sanctioned the use of images and idols in 787 A.D. (the Seventh Ecumenical Council), and Popes Gregory II, Gregory III, and Hadrian I all stated it was the duty of Christians to use and worship images of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints. You see, “they were of special value to the common people, who could not read the Holy Scriptures,” etc. The reactionaries to this idolatry were the Iconoclasts, who came from the eastern branch of the Catholic church (Asia Minor)—mainly the Greek emperors (Leo III and his sons). The iconoclastic synod of 753 denounced image wor­ship as a relapse into heathen idolatry which the devil had smuggled into the church. But since all dispensations end in apostasy—this is the Thyatira period—image worship finally triumphed in both apostate churches (Roman and Greek). The “icons” were restored to the churches ,n Constantinople in February of 842 A.D. On the day they were ^stored, the church called a “Sunday of Orthodoxy,” which gave offi- sanction to the doctrine of dolly worship; but it went further than for the churches declared that if anyone didn’t have images H^call them “icons” to make the sucker think they are not IMAGES) tob 'd°lS *n h‘s church, he was a HERETIC. The Donatists would not images in their churches.*1

es of Urc’1 history, then, which deals with the major, organized branch- churchrhfeSS*ng Christendom, could often more properly be called anti- W istory, or at least ecclesiastical history. The alibi given for the

machinations and dark intrigues of these times we.have just reviewed is that “zn those days Christians didn’t know the word of God. and with­out the printing press copies were hard to get hold of, so only the monks,” etc. In view of the fact that the Bible had been translated into Ethiopic, Syriac, Latin, Gothic, and possibly Celtic and Persian before Jerome sat down to pervert it, the alibi is rather lame. Furthermore, all of the popes and all of the archbishops professed to know the Bible well enough to state exactly what was “Christian belief” and what was not; and they were willing to kill people in order to back them up.

If Constantine received fifty copies of the scriptures,48 who read them? Who got them when they arrived at Rome? Is one to believe that they were so worthless that nobody copied any of them at least ten times? Couldn’t fifty official copies, safeguarded by a church state, be repro­duced into more than a thousand copies, or a hundred thousand copies? What was the church state doing, burning copies produced by indepen­dent, uneducated Christians,49 when thy wouldn’t even reproduce copies which they themselves thought were authentic? If the Trinity and the two natures of Christ were so well-defined by 500 A.D. that a Christian could be killed for not agreeing with Catholic decrees regarding them, someone must have spent an awful lot of time in the scriptures. How do you determine the two natures of Christ and their operations without reading the entire New Testament through at least seven times? There are people in 1980 who have read it through ten times who still cannot explain those matters clearly.

Now, the perverted interpretations of the arrogant Catholic bishops and archbishops, along with their vicious lives and raging fanaticism against their opponents, shows all too well how they felt about the con­tents of ANY Bible. With them the Bible was an afterthought. Whatever in it could be used to maintain unity and power (Matt. 16:16-18; John 20:23) was certainly held to be “the sacred, verbal, plenary inspired original,” but whatever in it would hurt the unity of the church or weaken its political power was to be overruled and replaced on the basis of any extra-canonical writing of any Father that could be found; where it coul not be found, a blatant forgery would serve just as well. If a young man seeking for the truth would like to know how the hoodlums in Vatican feel about “final authority,” he should read a little hate > erature” which exposes the hatred that these rascals have for

Book. ,,5o

“The pope’s letter is the most weighty authority in the churc (Then it obviously outweighs the Bible if you are a member of a ( a^ofe church.) “Reading the Bible in the language of the people does

harm than good. ”51 Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of the scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.52 “It is not necessary for all Christians to read the Bible.”53 (Why not? Worried they might see something they are not supposed to see?) A priest is a “saviour”; you are to obey him not as a man, but as God.54

In spite of pious little “cover ups” like “ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ” (a quotation by Jerome sometimes found in the prefaces to the Alexandrian Bible published by Rome: American, Douay, Chailoner, Rheims, etc.), there are no great Bible scholars in the Cath­olic church, and there never have been. In the twentieth century, Prot­estant Bible scholars who are pro-Catholic are dead orthodox apostates, and Protestant Bible scholars who are anti-Catholic are Pre-millennial Conservatives. Rome has never produced and kept one proficient Bible scholar in fifteen hundred years of recorded history.

Jerome could be fooled by Origen as quickly as by “God’s mother- in-law” (see chapter 11, note 46). Martin Luther left the church when he began to master the Bible. The only brains that stayed in the Roman church were Jesuit theologians, Jesuit politicians, Jesuit educators, and Jesuit philosophers (DeLugo, Bellarmine, Toleus, Suarez, Lessius, et al.); and not one of them knew enough Bible to teach Daniel, Revelation, Romans, Galatians, or Colossians in ANY language from ANY set of manuscripts. Roman Catholicism, per se, is so NON-Biblical it cannot produce a Biblical scholar. A low estimation of the power and authority of the Bible will never produce a Bible scholar. It may produce an ety­mologist, a philosopher, a grammarian, a theologian, a reviser (or “Biblicist”; twentieth century cliche), or a textual critic; it cannot pro­duce a man who understands, believes, and knows the contents of the word of God (1 Cor. 1-2; Isa. 28-29; Luke 10:21). That is a law that God established, and it operates automatically, regardless of your opinion about it or anyone else’s opinion.

■It is necessary to look for a moment at the contemporary domestic and social scenery around 500-1000 A.D. to get a better understanding _ die conditions under which the Bible believers were called to witness r e Lord. The system was called ‘ 'the feudal system, ’ ’ and it operated somewhat as follows.

Ve feudalism the relationship of the people to their “King” was ^■pistant, and consequently this hindered the development of strong K/. les- Th*s decentralization of political governments was due to Ur|der h any to §uard the lives and property of his subjects g e boisterous conditions of the times, characterized mainly by

raiding horsemen from north, south, east, and west at a moment’s notice. The people, for purposes of survival, became gathered into clusters under barons and “lords,” with the local man-of-war as the leader; this was especially true of the Germanic tribes in Germany proper. These clusters lived in an agrarian economy with peasants called “tenants” renting lands from “lords” or “suzerains.” Fortified towns and houses were everywhere, with the big “lords” or barons running the smaller ones. Any man who was under a lord was called a “vassal,” and he had to swear allegiance to the immediate straw boss of the area. This oath was called “giving fealty. ” (The “fief’ was the name for the portion of land rented out to a vassal for him to work.) In exchange for this oath of fealty, the vassal was guaranteed a forty hour week, time-and-a-half for overtime, social security, and “fringe benefits,” which back in those days meant food, clothing, and protection. This was the basic German system. “Beneficium” was a reference to the fact that donations (tax exempt) were often made to the church, so that by the year 1000 A.D. the Catholic church owned several hundred thousand acres of land in

Europe, all “tax exempt”: like Yankee Stadium and their present hold­ings in the Miller Brewing Company (beer).55 One who held ay?e/might some day become a “lord” by granting a portion of his land to another vassal (sub-infeudation): this vassal of a vassal was called (we could have guessed it) a “sub-vassal. ”(He was a sort of janitor who worked for a sharecropper, or vice versa^X “serf” was his proper designation, and he was a person bound to me land, representing an intermediate position between a freeman and a slave.

Military duty was the most important characteristic of feudalism because everyone’s life, but everyone, was in danger about six days a week from some source or another. Each feudal state had to maintain its own army; each vassal was required to serve in the army for a certain amount of time each year. Against the Biblical instructions given by the Holy Spirit for covering these matters (1 Cor. 9:7), Catholic vassals had to equip themselves and pay their own expenses. In such an army there was no unification of command, and often a draft army wou ■ “resign” if one king wanted to attack another king; or at least the draftee could desert in combat if things weren’t going right. The average vas a would take the hippy way out when these things occurred. He cou I always plead the “Vietnam Amendment” and simply claim that (this vassal’s) was purely defensive; he had only been inducted into m itary service to protect his king or “lord” in case of an attac

Feudal justice was executed by means of what they calle ordeal.” The plaintiff in each case made an accusation, and from

on the man who was accused was considered to be guilty until proven innocent. (This Jesuit method still survives among the faculty members and student bodies at Pensacola Christian College, Bob Jones University, and Falwell’s schools in Lynchburg, in regard to their attitude about the King James Bible. They take for granted that it must have mistakes in it because of the brainwash job done on them by professional liars.56) It was believed by the courts in those days that if the accused came through the “ordeal” uninjured, he was innocent; that is, God was on his side. If he dropped dead, obviously, he was as guilty as hell. Some ordeals were not designed to kill the “respondent”; some were only designed to scald his arms by immersing them in boiling water, or burn his feet off by walking on red hot coals, or wound him in some other way by armed combat. Murder and mayhem was still kept at a minimum for the obvious reason that whenever a “defendant” failed to survive,

he had a friend or relative who could begin to look for an accusation against the plaintiff to give him a dose of his own medicine. Human nature is a remarkable thing.

In social circles the nobles and the clergy lived “high on the hog and low on the chicken,” which is a plain way of saying “luxuriously” (or “faring sumptuously”). Nobles lived in castles and manor houses and spent their time (when they weren’t knocking each other’s brains out) in hunting, feasting, and participating in tournaments. Anyone who has spent any time watching television or the movies doesn’t have to have a detailed account of such matters. The Tales of King Arthur, Camelot, Sir Galahad, Roland, Robin Hood, the Black Knight, Ivanhoe, the Round Table, Prince Valiant, etc., are all vestiges of a culture where “knights were bold in days of old.” On the bottom of the pile were the second estate: the vassals, serfs, fiefs, and slaves. It was the typical Roman Catholic pyramid or Mao Tse-tung pyramid—two classes: a rul- >ng class on top and the rest of humanity on the bottom. This is also the Fascist set-up (1933-1945) and the Communist set-up (1917-1980). oscism, Communism, Catholicism, Socialism, Nazism, and humanism the same system. All totalitarian systems are exactly alike in structure, feudal system was a religious dictatorship57 at Rome which sided l ' the nobies, barons, and kings against humanity (the masses). This s^em st’h >s the Roman Catholic system conducted by the Vatican (Joh’ °nty var*at’on being a few “token gestures” by the popes anio XIII, Paul V, John Paul II) to create a false image of the church: Feb^n1-^656, Pres*ding at the wedding of a “commoner” (John Paul, nation * ’ re^us'n8 to he crowned with the standard tiara at the coro-

t ohn XXIII), and speeches aimed at “the welfare of the poverty-

striken masses" and the “good of the people," etc. All popes since 1960 are pro-Communist in policy and aims. Since both totalitarian sys­tems are the same, any Communist can survive in a Catholic country, as long as he is a “Catholic.”

The status of a farmer in feudalism was degrading. You could expect little national spirit or patriotism from a farmer unless you gave him a religious alibi for fighting; so, the armies drafted for this Crusades (chapter 14, notes 22-23) were raised in this fashion. A worthy motive for killing was invented, and a Christian cause was manufactured out of thin air, convincing the superstitious barons and vassals that it was “God’s will.” In such a social system, torn with petty interests and conflicting authorities, the Catholic dictatorship could keep things pretty well in hand—divide and conquer. As long as strong national monarchs did not rise up, “the Kingdom” could come. By pitting the barons against each other, none of them could get enough power to resist papal author­ity, and by keeping them split up, no king could muster his forces to cast off papal authority. Further, with the weapons of interdiction (note 31) and excommunication in hand, the Fascist dictators at Rome (“blessed apostle Simon Peter,” etc.) could extort all the money they needed to coerce any “lord” into doing their bidding. As a matter of fact, the popes from 600 A.D. up through the reign of the papal pornocracy were so powerful that they dictated to the barons and dukes the times they could fight and the times that were for “cease fires.” These two “rules” for conducting warfare were called ‘‘The Truce of God" and ‘‘The Peace of God. ” (Not to be confused with anything in the Bible about either: Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:15-16). The “Truce of God” meant that it was time to stop fighting and rest for Easter, Christmas, All Saints Day, Groundhog Day, All Souls Day, Bing Crosby Day, etc. The “Peace of God” meant that certain sections of land were off limits (a “demilitarized zone” is the contemporary expression) for war; fighting there was a “no no.” Quite by accident these sections always seemed to have wealthy clergymen, ornate cathedrals, rich monasteries, and Catholic relics in them. For example, it would have been "against the rules to bomb Mt. Cassino Abbey (1944) even if the German Wehrmacht was using it as an artillery observation post.

Merry England had had enough invasions by 1000 A.D. to appre I ciate a "Truce of God” or a “Peace of God,” even it it came rom the devil. In the fourth century England had been protected by the military army of occupation, but Englanders dropped out ot the Ro | Empire in 410 A.D. when the Emperor Honorius was unabk to se^ help to them due to more pressing needs at home: protection from ojjH

barians and persecution of Bible believing Christians (see chapter 7, note 82). The invaders of England were mainly Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians; they came from Denmark, Germany, and Belgium. By 600 A.D. about half of the island was occupied by German tribes from the Continent. The Saxons split England up into seven kingdoms (North­umbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex). About 859 A.D. the Danes began to invade, and when they did they found allies among the old Celtic peoples whom the Saxons had conquered. For a similar case, see the Germans in Austria and the Sudetenland taking Hitler’s side when he entered Austria and Czechoslovakia: 1938.

The Saxons and the Danes finally made a truce and split up the country until the time of Alfred the Great (Alfred of Wessex), who defeated the Danes soundly in 878 A.D. and ran them back onto the Continent. Ethelred, Edmund, and Edgar the Peaceful followed Alfred. Then came Canute the Dane (called “Great”—-a man, not a Great Dane!), followed by Edward the Confessor and the Norman conqueror, William (1066).

France, as a nation, began about 843 with the Treaty of Verdun (chapter 12, notes 76-80). In 987 A.D. the Carolingian line came to an end when Hugh Capet was chosen as emperor. The duchies of France were Normandy, Burgundy, Brittany, Aquitaine, and Gascony, while the counties were Flanders, Bois, Champagne, Anjou, Toulouse, and Barcelona. The Capetian kings were Hugh (987-996), Robert (996-1031), Henry (1031-1060), and Philip (1060-1108).

Germany had not yet become a nation at the end of the ninth century. Five different peoples inhabited it, and they should be defined by name, history, and institutions: the Alamanni, (or Swabians) between the Vosges Mountains and the Lech River; the Bavarians, living to the each of the Lech; the Franconians, who were the eastern Franks of the Rhineland; the Saxons, in central and northern Germany; and the inhab­itants of Alsace-Lorraine in the Rhineland. The German State was estab­lished by Henry I (the Fowler) in 919 A.D. Otto I (936) was elected to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire (Feb. 2, 962), and from this *me on, for forty years, the popes at Rome were nominated by the rrnan kings. Otto II (973-983) continued his father’s work by seizing Bg*es and Tarentum and bringing Italy under control; however, he

defeated by the Saracens in 982 A.D. and died in 983. Otto II was (1024^*1039^ Ott° Bl’ Henry Duke °f Bavaria (1014), and Conrad II of tk^OW’ this belongs to the realm of secular history, the history

e world system (1 John 2:15-16), operated by Satan (Luke 4:6-7).

When speaking of the “Christianization” of these nations (chapter 10, notes 69-84) and the “conversions” of their kings, we should exercise the utmost caution and never be so indiscreet as Schaff or so bold as Latourette and others in supposing that Biblical Christianity was spread­ing. Biblical Christianity carries in its entourage very few “mighty,” and few that are “noble” (1 Cor. 1:25-29). Most of these emperors were simply rivals of the popes, and they fought with him to the best of their own abilities in order to keep control over their own dominions. The pope, being a worldly ruler exactly like them (except he claimed all of their dominions combined), responded with “more of the same.” It was kind of like Stalin calling Mindszenty a “dictator,” or perhaps Pope Pius XII calling Mussolini a dictator: birds of a feather.

Throughout these hectic times chivalry grew as an institution. We will not go into a long thing about it, as so many have volunteered to write about it (and recently, reenact it) that it is as well-known to western civilization as cowboys and Indians. Sir Galahad’s efforts to find the cup that Christ drank from, Merlin the magician, Sir Lancelot. Tristan and Isolde, Valhalla, Robin Hood, Friar Tuck, William Tell, Sir Gawain, and the Lady of the Lake are as ingrained in English and European cul­ture as Grimm’s fairy tales and Mother Goose rhymes. The culmination of this entire system—that is, the gathering together in one bundle of all that was good, pure, romantic, brave, and noble about Catholic chiv­alry in this age (500-1000)—was the call from the popes to kill Saracens. The Crusades against the “infidels” (Mohammedans), designed to “restore the Holy City to the Holy Church so that the Holy Virgin Mother could glory in the Holy Cross held up by the Holy Father, blah, blah, blah,” was the perfect unifying idea: it was the greatest inspiration that a Bible rejecting Papist ever had for holding an “empire” together. It really put Constantinople’s diplomacy (chapter 8, notes 38-43) off the map.

1. All of the barons and lords and kings would be under HIS orders.,

2. All of the serfs, peasants, and vassals, would jump at the chancel to go on a worldwide excursion to loot and bring home treasures. I

3. All those who did the fighting would have a chance to be a

for the church and gain heaven by works: dying “for the glory of G • |

4. If the Crusaders returned rich, the pope could split the booty.

5. If they captured Jerusalem, he might even move there (2 T e • I 2:1-14), as Constantine had moved west to east, and then he cou g| credit for doing what Christ couldn’t do: he would get credit for tir"^’on in the Millennial reign of Christ (HIMSELF; see Matt. 24. , V the earth.

If ever a politician had a capital idea, Pope Urban II had it.

The Crusades usher in the Sardis period of church history (Rev. 3:1). The “Red Ones” refer to the bloodied bodies of the crusaders stretching out on the land for a thousand miles between Constantinople and Cairo, the bleeding bodies of men, women, and children hacked to pieces by Catholic priests, bishops, and their congregations,58 and the corpses of over five million victims of the Black Death.59 Sardis ushers in a period of history which, if it were given any terminology relative to the church, would be called “Unholy Mother church,” or (more scripturally) “Hellish Mother Whore” (Rev. 17:1-9). Catholics refer many times to such documented, scriptural FACTS as “hate lit­erature.”60

Before entering the portals that take us to Sardis, where the bloodiest murders ever committed in western history up to that time were com­mitted, let us examine the lives of a few outstanding individuals in the Thyatiran period (500-1000 A.D.), laying their lives and works alongside the infallible standard (AV 1611) to see if they are to be found as faithful witnesses to church history or vacillating witnesses to anti-church history.

Gregory “the Great” (540-604)

When a church historian calls a man “great” (see Leo the Great, Charles the Great, Peter the Great, Canute the Great, et al.), it is because of the man’s reputation among worldlings; the term has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity per se. “Great” (see chapter 14, notes 122-128) is the nomenclature for men who are not like Peter, James, John, and Paul. The apostles refer to themselves (1 Peter 5:1-6) as servants and “less than the least of all saints” and “chief’ of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). They were called “great” by no one before or after their deaths. To counterfeit these “bond-slaves of Jesus Christ,” the popes often made the hypocritical profession of being a “servant of servants,”61 but this will not do at all; a wolf professing to be a sheep (Matt. 7:15) cannot absolve himself from the charge of hypocrisy. Gregory the Great is called the Great” because he was a crafty politician, a great organizer, and an energetic proselytizer for a religious prostitute (Rev. 17:1-6). The ^dern term is “pimp. "His “interest” in England (chapter 12, notes certa>nly had nothing to do with a burden for lost souls or a desire °bey 2 Corinthians 5:20 or Acts 1:8. Gregory, as all popes, was ^_erned with bringing every country in Europe into a totalitarian ■ state, with himself as head of that church, especially any country time that had providentially obtained the correct Bible text (see On p er 11 ’ notes 86-89) and was beginning to oppose Roman traditions aster and infant baptism (chanter 12. notes 17-273

Pat’s work in Ireland and Columba’s work in'Scotland and England had created a sudden, desperate need for a ‘.‘missionary effort” to “con­vert the poor, idolatrous pagans” in England; at least that is how any pious hypocrite like Gregory would shell it out if you asked him for the peanuts. When Boniface received his papal commission to corrupt the primitive Christianity of south Germany and Switzerland (chapter 12, notes 17-29), the first thing he was equipped with (after copies of Jerome’s New ASV) was a pile of bones and relics to be reverenced by the “pagans.” Substituting one set of idols for another is hardly an operation which could be connected with New Testament Biblical evangelism.

Gregory (Rome’s greatest pope62) was born into a rich family of professional politicians (senators) and was a Roman governor before becoming a pope. He became a monk after his father’s death and col­lected enough “tithes” to build six monasteries in Sicily; his widowed mother entered a convent and was canonized by the Catholic church. Gregory became a papal ambassador (“nuncio” in 1980) to Constanti­nople (580) to try to undermine the authority of the eastern patriarchs and bring them into subjection to Rome; he “served” there until 590 A.D. When he became pope, the first thing he did was raise an army to kill Lombards,63 and since he held tradition (Col. 2:8) to be as author­itative as scripture (Mark 7:6-13), he preached purgatory as a Biblical doctrine and taught that pastors (priests) should be unmarried (1 Tim. 4:3). In short, he was a Bible perverting apostate. Gregory was the one who sent Augustine to England (chapter 12, notes 17-29) to Romanize the Bible believing Christians there. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of him that he was “above all, a physician of SOULS” (in or out of purgatory?).64

Philip Schaff, setting his Bible aside before making any comments on Gregory, says that since “goodness” is the highest kind of “great­ness,” that the “church has done right in according the title of ‘Great to him. ”65 Schaff obviously did not consider (nor has he ever considered) that faithfidness to God (Matt. 22:37) and obedience to the word of Go (1 Sam. 15:22) mark the Christians as being “great”—not just being good.” John R. Rice leans heavily toward Schaff in these

Since there is “none that doeth good” (Rom. 3:12), and N IS GOOD, SAVE ONE, THAT IS, GOD” (Luke 18:19), the “gooa men” who promoted Jerome’s New ASVand Rice’s NIVall altered u 18:19 so that it did not read “NONE IS GOOD.” It would seen^veS one of the characteristics of “good men” (or men who fancy to be “good”) is a predilection to alter everything in the Bible t ...:,u ’t KPpm to be able to stand the Bible as v

If “goodness” is greatness in God’s sight, then there has never lived on this earth a great man: the word of God (Rom. 3) is very clear about these matters. Barnabas was only a “good” man by virtue of the Holy Spirit within him (Acts 11:24) that led him (Gal. 5:16) to bring forth the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Hiring armies to kill Lombards does not come under this heading except in the imaginations of church historians. Destroying the Biblical faith of converted pagans who were won to Christ by others is not characteristic of “goodness.” If accosted with these charges, historians like Schaff and Latourette would immediately resort to the old “mentally incapable” bit or the “mentally irresponsible” plea: “Your honor, my client didn’t know what he was doing,” etc. (See the Son of Sam, Charlie Manson, et al.) Gregory would have handled it differently, however; in reference to killing Lombards and calling any professing Christian who didn’t agree with Nicene orthodoxy a “heathen,” Gregory said, “Let us imitate the works of the pious as well as we can. ’ ’ According to Gregory, pious saints kill “the heathen.” Philip Schaff had already agreed that if a man is an Arian he is a heathen,66 and that all of the Lombards were

ARIAN.67 Extrapolating from these basic equations, we can assume that Philip Schaff would have you killed if he thought you were an “Arian. ” Since the Lombards were the independent tribes of north Italy, where most of the Bible preaching and teaching was going on (chapter 10, notes 89-99), we may also assume that Schaff would have attacked them along with Gregory.

When the last Bible believing Christian was run out of Spain into the Pyrenees (Council of Toledo, May 8 589), Gregory “the Great” rejoiced.68 It was quite similar to the great celebration that Pope Adrian I ordered when he received news that Charlemagne (785) had “converted” thousands of Saxons to Christianity. The evidence of this mighty ‘revival” resulting in “thousands of conversions” was the fact that thousands of the Saxons had been sprinkled by Catholic priests. However there was a footnote to Charlie’s telegram that neither he nor the pope talked about too much; the conversions were made with the understand­ing that if any Saxon refused Catholic sprinkling he was to be put to P?0"1-69 A similar celebration with high masses, bells ringing, and com­memoration medals being struck was ordered by Pope Gregory XIII jr*611 over fifty thousand Bible believing Christians in France were mur-

red (St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre).70

The word “great,” when attached to any Roman Catholic, can have nU??,Us implications (see chapter 14, notes 122-128).

hen writing of this vicious killer, the church historians are almost ^■encal in their praise. Bishop Bousset (cited by Montalembert): “This

great Pope...saved Rome and Italy...goverened with as much vigor as humility...gave to the world a PERFECT model....”71 Count Monta- lembert: ‘‘No one would have hesitated to call the greatest of the popes...his virtue, his candor...his innocence...the tenderness of his heart.”72 Gibbon: ‘‘a clear, practical understanding...a kind and mild heart...lenient to the penitent and a warm friend...with a great prudence...and great sagacity...humility to him was the most sublime virtue...a warm patriot...a great character...he shines as a star of the very first magnitude.”73 James Barmby: ‘‘The loftiness of his aims, the earnestness of his purpose, the fervor of his devotion, his personal purity,” etc.74

What these men-following, men-pleasing, men-worshipping human­ists are trying to say is that Gregory was everything you could want in an unsaved politician trying to act like a “Christian.” Of his fidelity to the Bible nothing could be said at all. If the Bible were raised alongside Gregory’s life as a standard, his greatness would pass away as the morn­ing dew. Nothing could be said in regard to his motives, heart attitude, beliefs, practices, sermons, or leadership. But when a church historian writes of this kind of man, he accepts him on the basis of his reputation with his subordinates in the hierarchy or the testimony of those in the hierarchy who wanted to see IT prosper. Biblical truth is out of the question. Humanism and sentimental evaluation of sinners when dealing with sinners was what made Gregory “the Great” (chapter 14, notes 121-139).

Gregory’s theology was based on four church councils, the traditions of the fathers, and the four gospels75—thereby excluding the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-6), the plan of salvation (Rom. 1:15), and the entire body of doctrinal truth revealed to Rome by the apostle to the Romans (Rom. 15:6-16). In short, Gregory was a Bible warping scamp. He is called, “one of the great doctors and authoritative fathers of the church’ by Philip Schaff. Not any church found in any New Testament. Gregory handled scripture in such an Alexandrian fashion that one would think his middle name was Clement (see chapter 5). He says that Job is Christ, Job’s wife is Job’s carnal nature, the seven sons (Job 1:1-2) are the! apostles and the clergy, and the three daughters of Job are the threel classes of faithfid LAITY. He also says that Job’s friends are heretics* and that the seven thousand sheep (Job 1:3) are “perfect Christians. You couldn't get more screwed up in heresy if you followed Joe Smi angel (Moroni). Gregory is as lost as a goose in a horse race uhen comes to expounding the scriptures. Gregory’s four books “Dialogues” are the chief source of medieval superstitions aboil p gatory.77

If Gregory the Great was “great” according to the Bible, a Christian should get his standards of values readjusted to the Koran or the Analects of Confucius.

Gottschalk (805-868)

This man was a German Benedictine monk and theologian near Mainz, Germany. He was condemned for his teaching and preaching by Hincmar ofRheims (chapter 12, notes 118-119) and Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (848-849). He was imprisoned in a monastery the last twenty years of his life. Gottschalk collided with Rabanus Maurus on the matter of absolute predestination. Gottschalk (as Calvin) taught a double-barreled, absolute predestination of the “non-elect” to hell as well as the elect to heaven. In these matters, Gottschalk followed the North African apostate Augustine all the way.78 Rabanus Maurus pointed out Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 to Gottschalk to convince him that both election and predestination were conditioned on foreknowledge (not “unconditional,” as taught by Mauro, Machen, Augustine, Bob Ross,. Kuyper, Dabney, Mill, Hodge, Gilpin, Pink, Shelton, et al.).

Hincmar—the gentleman who wouldn’t baptize babies (chapter 6, notes 57, 93)—is branded by Philip Schaff, the “church historian,” as a proud, intolerant prelate because he treated the “poor monk” (Gottschalk) without mercy.79 That is, Gottschalk was scourged at the Synod of Chiersy (849) and then imprisoned. Schaff commends St. Remigius, the Archbishop of Lyons, for expressing horror at this “unheard of impiety and cruelty. ” Evidently neither Remigius nor Schaff had studied very much church history where it dealt with Calvin: he burned dissidents at the stake (chapter 17), and Augustine approved of killing anyone who opposed infant baptism.80 With Gottschalk’s incar­ceration and Pope Nicolas going to bat for him (chapter 12, note 84), another irrelevant argument became an “issue” to add to the pile of scrap metal issues designed to cover up the real issue: absolute authority. The old arguments about Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, Augus- tinianism and semi-Augustinianism arose again to fog up the windshield of every driver in the Dark Ages. The scenery was clear however; it was all too clear—Hincmar wouldn’t baptize babies.

A moderate doctrine of absolute predestination (if you can imagine such a thing) was adopted by Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes; Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie; Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferrieres; and Remigius, Archbishop of Lyons. It was confirmed by synods (Valence, 855; and Langres, 859). The doctrine of free will and conditional predestination (Rom. 8:29) was advocated by Archbishop Maurus of Mainz, Arch­

bishop Hincmar of Rheims, and Bishop Pardulus of Laon; it was con­firmed in synods at Chiersy (853) and Savonnieres (859).

The theory set forth by Gottschalk (805-868) simply taught that the unsaved sinners who went to hell were foreordained before the foun­dation of the world to that end and were predestinated before birth to go to the lake of fire.75 With this blasphemous nonsense the doors opened for a first-rate sideshow, and away the theologians went with “gemina and bipartita, ” for two sides of predestination; “pariter and propemodum,” in regard to sins committed by the “non-elect”; “effi­cient and sufficient deaths” of Christ for two different kinds of sinners; God as the ‘ ‘ordinator and acrutor ’ ’ of good thoughts and bad thoughts; and “proedestinatio gemina. ”

Pope Nicolas sided with Gottschalk against Hincmar because Gottschalk would sprinkle babies to get them elected, and Hincmar wouldn't. The outcome of such a theological bull-fest was predestinated to be a wipe-out “before the foundation of the world,” for, after all, no Roman Catholic in Europe ever thought of salvation apart from water. No Roman Catholic associated salvation with election or non-election, with special calling or general calling, or with common or saving grace; every true Roman Catholic had been led by his priests to associate sal­vation with earning his way to heaven by doing the works that the bishops and priests told him to do.82 As usual, the official council (a “synod,” in this case) had nothing to do with anything but the inner, political manipulations of a political machine.

Paschasius Radbertus (800-865)

This Catholic crystallized the theory of black magic called “tran- substantiation. ” He was born near Soissons, France, and brought up by Benedictine nuns. He was an abbot, though never a priest (844-851). Transubstantiation teaches that when a black-robed, Baalite “priest officiates at a Roman Catholic “altar,” he has the power by incantation and prayer to turn a piece of bread into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ83—although it is UNBLOODY.** The liquor that he then drinks has been “bootlegged” (that is, “homemade”), for he himself turns it into the blood of Christ85—although it is still UNBLOODY.*6} But, of course, in the substances mesmerized are to be found the VERY BODY and VERY BLOOD of Christ—in a bloodless manner.87

Now, to a modern reader this sounds as though Cathb s are either “off their rockers” or someone is misrepresenting their rei.gious posi I tion, but this is only due to modern man’s bigotry and ignorance. Any literature put out by the Knights of Columbus on the mass (see Rome—t e

Great Private Interpreter, 1969) will show that the preceding statements are describing the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, and further that anyone who doesn’t believe in this garbled rigmarole is cursed of God.ss These matters are matters of historical fact and have nothing to do with emotional reactions to undesirable literature or some­one’s ideas about what his church may or may not teach. The Catholic mass is an unbloody sacrifice that is supposed to produce out of bread and wine the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ—in an UN­BLOODY manner. That is the truth given in every nihil obstat, imprimatured piece of Catholic literature dealing with the subject.89 Catholics must believe that the Sunday morning mass in an Catholic church is IDENTICAL with the Lord’s Supper in the upper room.90 Further, that both of them are identical with the one, effectual, BLOODY sacrifice on Calvary (Heb. 10:8-12), except that two are UNBLOODY and one is BLOODY.

You are to believe this and at the same time believe you are sane. If you do believe it, someone has probably blown out your pilot light. According to Radbertus, there is “nothing else in the Eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ,” although the “figures of bread and wine remain.”92 That is, you pretend that the figure is real (1 Peter 3:21) while you are pretending that the real is only a figure (see Matt. 15:17). These excursions into the realm of cloud-land with fairies,

spooks, and hobgoblins are not to be considered as inconceivable trips for good Catholics. To attain this fantastic perversion of common sense and Biblical truth, Radbertus extracted John 6:52-54 from its context, then he removed John 6:63 as the key for interpreting it, and then he placed it down into Matthew 26:27 and pretended that it was a reference to a Roman priest “sacrificing” on Sunday morning.93

Radbertus evidently was not wired up on the right circuit.

The chief opponent of Radbertus was Ratramnus (800-868), who restored verse 63 to its context (John 6:54) after Radbertus had removed Ratramnus regarded the mass as a commemorative celebration of Christ s death. Nicolas’s old enemy Hincmar (chapter 6, note 57), who w°uldn t baptize babies, also refused to believe that a Catholic priest bei reproduce Jesus Christ every Sunday morning long enough to Kpten (see Augustine’s madness in regard to this: chapter 6, note

A pupi] of Fulbert of Chartres named Berenger (1000-1088) finally dent^ h to a showdown. Berenger (or Berengar) was a Bible stu- Urai.w^° had the courage to criticize the authority of Rome. Quite nat- a ra^ e came to the conclusion that Radbertus was as cockeyed as F rooster. Berenger began to teach his pupils in Germany and

France that Radbertus didn’t know what he was talking about.94 He was sent two letters of warning from an archbishop in 1046, where he was condemned, in absentee, without a hearing. (The pope had decided to back up another heresy since he saw its utility in maintaining UNITY and POWER.) Berenger did appear before a Lateran council later (1059) under Nicolas II, who insisted that when a Catholic eats a piece of bread blessed by a “priest,” he is swallowing Christ’s literal body.95

When he returned to France, Berenger went right on denying the truthfulness of any such gross and vulgar thing (Lev. 17:10; Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:29), and he attacked the blasphemies of Popes Leo IX and Nicolas II. Consequently, the pope raised up such an army of ecclesi­astical heretics against him that Berenger was almost killed at the Synod of Poitiers (1075). Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) tried to protect him but chickened out when he saw that Berenger had so many priests and bishops who disagreed with him.96 The upshot of all this was that the blasphemous doctrine of Radbertus was finally accepted by all Roman Catholics as Christian doctrine, and for five hundred years after this the deceived popes and their stooges were killing Christians who dis­agreed with them about it. Berenger’s followers numbered around three million by that time.97

The Council of Trent (1546) reaffirmed Radbertus’s African voo- dooism by saying that any man on earth who doesn’t believe that the whole substance of bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ and the whole substance of wine into the substance of the BLOOD is cursed. Of course, for centuries there was a little horseplay with the terms (as there had to be with the “bloody” and “unbloody” bit), for the “laity” were given the body without the blood, according to the definitions established by Trent. However, this was no problem to any irrational man who had already “flipped his lid” and discarded the Bible for black magic; the priest simply told the laity, “If you get bread (Christ’s body), the blood has to come in it because blood is usually in a body.”98 Any old port in a storm.

Now, this is not a caricature of the position, although the dirty heretics responsible for the blasphemous doctrine may insist that it is- Thomas Aquinas (“the prince of the Scholastic divines’ ") gives us the so-called “Christian” explanation for the phenomena of stantiation. It is “FAITH, the law of sight transcending, to things not understood. ” Or to put it over the plate wa

itual alibi (Heb. 11:1-2) has been given for denying the won oj and the Biblical faith that comes from hearing that word (Rom-• trUth

*-- „i;u; nrivp.n for this deliberate perversion of Bib e I

il igh:aspir-

is “FAITH.” You are to have “faith” to believe that God is a liar (John 6:63) and faith to believe that a Roman Catholic fable IS the word of God (Mark 7:13).

With the acceptance of this unholy and obscene teaching came a thousand problems: what to do if someone poisons the liquor (which they did); what should you do if you step on a piece of the ‘ 'host ’ ’ (which happened); and what to do if a rat gets a hold of a piece of Jesus Christ (the ‘host”) and runs off into a hole before you can catch him.100 One major problem was what to do if Jesus Christ (the host) stuck to your false teeth. The solution to this is found in the twentieth century Catholic literature (1906, 1910) by an American “bishop” in New York.101 You take Jesus Christ out of your plates with a knife or your finger, put “Him” into water, and then drink “Him.”102 Christians who know

the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and the Lord of the universe could hardly be expected to trade their own God in for a ‘‘god’ that you could scrape around with a knife and drink. Your “god” would have to be your BELLY (Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19) before you could do that. The logical outcome of this coarse and obscene, pagan ritual was the teaching that if a priest regurgitated “the host,” he must pick up the vomit if able.103 But the implications of this “dangerous delusion” (Articles of the Church of England, Article No. 31) go far beyond this, for if the Christian “receives the Lord Jesus” every Sunday to swallow Him again, what happens to “the Lord” during the week?

To this day Ted Kennedy and Califano (HEW, 1979) practice and believe in this hideous banality, palmed off on “Christians” as the high point of Christian worship. The bloodiest murders in England under Bloody Mary (chapter 17) were executed because of the refusal of Bible believing Christians to subscribe to the spiritual madness of Radbertus and Lanfranc (his most zealous supporter), who was the Archbishop of Canterbury (see chapter 12, notes 21-22) from 1070-1089.

Gregory “the Great” believed in cannibalism in the fashion given above (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:12, 14; Acts 15:29) as religiously as any Cohen Baal” (priest of Baal, Judges 18) who ever did penance (1 Kings ®) for the “queen of heaven’’ (Jer. 44).104 There is nothing new about Pagans offering up drink offerings of blood (Ps. 16:4). Any Jew in

F'St s time knew this and knew that His words in John 6 could not He^0'1 Uterally tf*6 w’^est stroke of chance (John 6:63) unless

'yas blaspheming outrightly. Catholic priests and bishops never could ■r’e **teral passages (Matt. 15:16) rightly divided from the spiritual K“Sages (Matt. 16:12). No unsaved man could (1 Cor. 2:14).

John of Damascus (675-749)

John was the last of the Post-Nicene Fathers. He was noted for defending pagan idolatry by recommending the use of images as “aids to worship. ”105 He is called the “father of scholasticism. ”106 According to Johnny, the Virgin Mary appeared to him on several occasions.107 For his writings in favor of image worship and idolatry, he was enthu­siastically lauded by the Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.).108 John, as Clement and Origen, vehemently applied the teachings of Porphyry (an atheist) and Aristotle (an evolutionary socialist) to Christian doctrines. After he refused to heed the Divine warnings aimed right smack at him (Col. 2:8 and 1 Tim. 6:20), he presumed to write “an accurate summary' of the Orthodox faith.”109 It is an Aristotelian extravaganza about as scriptural as the poems of St. Thomas Aquinas. John of Damascus believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary (which if true means she sinned against God and disobeyed her husband, 1 Cor. 7:5); John also believed that 1 and 2 Clement belonged to the New Testament, and that the two witnesses in Revelation 11 were Enoch and Elijah (see Rev. 11:3 and comments in that commentary). John does not mention how a sinner gets saved in any of his writings, nor does he state what blood atonement has to do with completed salvation. We are to assume he was a Christian, like we are to assume that Nestle, Westcott, and Hort were Christians.

Baeda (the Venerable Bede) (673-735)

The Bede was born in England near the Scottish border; at the age of seven he was placed in a monastery set up by one of St. Patrick’s missionaries. In such an environment he had access to Old Latin manu­scripts (chapter 11, notes 87-89) that did not match Jerome’s New ASV (Latin Vulgate), and he was also exposed somewhat to a non-Roman, anti-papal Catholicism, a Celtic Christianity, which by this time was almost gone because of the deadly work of Augustine of Canterbury (chapter 12, notes 17-29), the pope’s undercover agent. The Bede had the disadvantage of being taught by a man (Benedict Biscop) who was a rabid Papist110 and who had visited Rome five times to bring bac a junk-yard full of pictures and relics. The Bede applied his whole time^ in the monastery studying Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and the scrip | tures.111 He declined to be an abbot, although at thirty he was ordain I as a “priest.” The Venerable Bede wrote in part or in whole | Pentateuch, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs,4 "'es*aSj^J Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the general epistles, and Revelation. 1 most outstanding thing about the Bede’s work was his constant corr

of Jerome’s corrupt Latin manuscripts (chapter 12, notes 17-29) while he was commenting on the Latin Bible. The Bede seems to have had “the original,” according to Philip Schaff,112 and Jerome’s Latin Bible was evidently not “up to snuff’ in the Bede’s eyes. The Uncial Codex E (Laudianus) from the sixth century contains an almost complete Greek- Latin text for Acts, and naturally it matches the King James text (see Acts 8:37; 9:5; 20:28 in the New ASV of Bob Jones or the NIV of Wheaton). The Bede’s most famous work was his Ecclesiastical History, which consists of five books telling the history of England down to 731 A.D.

Leo the Great (440-461)

Leo was the real marker of the papacy which later culminated in such characters (see above) as Gregory the Great. Leo I magnified his office (Rom. 11:13) by misapplying Romans 15:16. His chief aim, as Constantine’s, was to sustain the unity of the church and bring glory and power (and shekels) to the church instead of to God or the Bible. Leo laid great stress upon the primacy of Peter (which he claimed) and insisted that Peter’s apostolic power (which he claimed) had been passed on to the Roman bishops and Roman popes only (which he professed to be). From a Biblical standpoint, one might say he was an egocentric madman. Readers of church history are familiar with three verses of scripture which Catholics pervert out of their contexts (see Rome—the Great Private Interpreter, 1969) to obtain this teaching (Matt. 16:16-18; John 20:23; Luke 22:38). The Bible which Leo perverted shows that more than twelve apostles received power to “retain and remit” (John 20:23; Luke 24:38). that Paul had the power also (2 Cor. 2:10), though he was not even in the room (Acts 13:38), and that Peter was no more in Rome than he was in Mexico City.113

Leo I was in favor of exterminating the “Priscillianists,” who were the Montanists of his day.114 Leo humbly presented himself as the spir­itual leader of the entire world whom all people were to honor, recog- ®ize, and obey.115 That is, he was a Bible rejecting, Fascist dictator."6

Methodius (815-885) and Constantius (827-869)

Methodiusand Constantius (Cyril) were two pains in the neck for , ecclesiastical demagogues of their day in both churches (Roman Cath- c and Greek Orthodox). Methodius was bom in Greece (Thessalonica) ^educated in Constantinople reading and studying a King James Greek from the Byzantine family of manuscripts.117 He and his his nonhCr began their mission work among the Tartars (845) on the

east shore of the Black Sea and later went to the Bulgarians.

At the invitation of Duke Ratislaw, they were sent to the Moravians. After years of successful evangelism they made the mistake of going to Rome to effect an agreement with Pope Adrian II relative to their work.118 Pope Adrian II was thus alerted (exactly as Gregory I had been: see chapter 12) to the fact that a Biblical type of Christianity (i.e. “Arianism” in Catholic terminology) was being established in the Balkans. He immediately went behind Constantius and Methodius when their backs were turned and made preparations to sent the papal Mafia in; this was to insure that if anyone got saved in the Balkans, Moravia, or bordering areas, that they would become baby sprinkling sacramen- talists who worshipped a pope, not Bible believing Christians who wor­shipped God.119 After the death of Ratislaw, Methodius was summoned to Rome and honored by the pope, who announced that at last he “recognized the independency of the Slavic church.” Whereupon it as immediately overrun with a mass of Roman monks and bishops and consequently returned to paganism.120 Accompanying this apostasy, the Slavic language (into which Methodius and Cyril had translated the Receptus) was replaced with the Latin of Rome.121 This was mainly for the purpose of ridding the Slavic people of the Slavic Bible, which Cyril and Methodius had brought from the Byzantine (Syrian) family of manuscripts.122 To do their translating work, Cyril had to invent an alphabet before translating; most of the work by this Bible believing, evangelistic translator was plowed under by the popes in less than one hundred years after his death,123 but it erupted violently in the next cen­tury, and centuries following, under the Bulgarians, Waldenses, Picards (and later the Hussites), and other “heretical” groups.

After Methodius and Cyril had preached (Evangelism) and taught the Bible (Education), the Papists came in with their Culture,124 and with them the eventual Apostasy; the cycle cannot be broken. Evangelism (a man), Education (a movement), Culture (a machine), Apostasy (a monument).


Hellish Mother Church

“And call no man your father upon the earth...Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matthew 23:9, 33

The turn of the first millennium (1000 A.D.) marks the end of the

Thyatiran period of church history; we have examined its nature and its “progress.” By the time of Gregory the Great (540-604) the period is well underway, and by the time of Henry III (1046) the transition has been made from Thyatira to the Sardis period (Rev. 3:1). The Sardis period ends with the Reformation in 1500 A.D.; and although secular historians may run “extra” time periods in, such as the Renaissance and Scholasticism, we will continue to deal with the Biblical time bracket

for church history since it is the Book that informed the world there ever was a church to start with and since it is the only Book in the uni­verse that professes to know the history of how history began (Gen. 1) and how history will end up (Rev. 22). Why trade in a Lincoln Con­tinental for a dune buggy?

In this period of church history the Roman Catholic church is in full bloom. She attains the very height of her power and authority and does not fail under these circumstances to exercise them to the fullest;

so we may take this period to be an A-l example of what true Roman Catholicism is (“by their fruits ye shall know them”). By the year 1400 A.D. this demoniac Harlot, whose debaucheries stained Europe with blood and filth (Rev. 17:1-6), had assimilated so many non-Christian non-Biblical teachings that to refer to her as the “Christian church” °r even as “a Christian church” would be an insult to the Holy Spirit.

y 1400 A.D. this hybrid monstrosity (Matt. 13) had become a nesting P^e for demons (Matt. 13:32) and was forbidding the “laity” from L. 8 “cup,” forbidding laymen to read the Bible in any language, lng a “wafer,” selling indulgences,1 twiddling beads on rosaries,

confessing sins to “priests,” and torturing Jews and Bible believers who wouldn’t go to mass or sprinkle their babies.2 To call such a mongrel mass of godless teaching and practice "orthodox doctrine” is too much for one day, or one century for that matter. Church history cannot be called upon to deal with such matters, at least not a history of the Chris­tian church. The Sardis period deals mainly with the affairs of a religious prostitute who sold God and the Bible out to obtain power and unity in the world system in direct violation of the orders given to the church in 2 Corinthians 6:14-17; Hebrews 13:10-14; John 17:9, 14; and 1 John 2:15-16. “Holy” mother church had become Unholy Mother Whore (Rev. 17:1-9), and her “vicars” and “princes”—who thought they came from “the prince of the apostles”—were no more apostolic in their beliefs, conduct, theology, aims, goals, motives, and plans than Baibars or Attila the Hun. The bungling egomaniac at Rome who claimed to “feed the sheep” (Luke 22:32; John 21:16) stated that the separation of church and state was absurd,3 that he should be obeyed like God Himself,4 that he held the place of God Almighty on this earth,3 that he was the “most Holy Lord,”6 and that he himself was subject to no authority7 because he was the absolute and final authority for every human being on this earth8 when it came to faith or practice. He and his supporters taught that it was a crime to disobey a “pope” in ANY matter, and if you did you should be burned at the stake.9

If this were not enough psychotic megalomania, the depraved Roman bishops taught that their priests were not subject to the laws of the land in which they lived (Rom. 13:1-4),10 but Bible believing “laymen” had to be subject to these laws plus the ecclesiastical laws of the Roman church no matter where they lived.

The creed of Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) made a Catholic swear with his hands on an Alexandrian Cult Bible that the “mass” was a propi­tiatory sacrifice (1 John 2:1-2) for the living and the dead, that souls in purgatory were helped by the “suffrages of the faithful,” that due honor and veneration should be given to images of the “Mother of God, and that if any sinner did not believe those things (as just stated) he had to go to hell. (“I...do at this present freely profess and sincerely hold this true Catholic faith without which NO ONE CAN BE SA VED. )

The irrational bigotry found in such a creed and justified in the name of “faith”—whereas the subscriber is actually condemned in the name of * ‘credulity ’ ’—is a certain guarantee of a crop of atheists. Catholicis breeds atheism (Russia, China, Cuba, France, Germany, etc.) tieC^n an unsaved intellectual (Communism from its inception has T' 3Ys a news media-student movement) will take for granted immediate y

the Roman Catholic church is an accurate representation of Biblical Chris­tianity: it is, inthe way that King Kong represents General William Booth.

This hellish church was held together by Augustine’s infant baptism and Radbertus’s theory (see chapter 13), which we have noted. The central point of worship and communion for all Catholics (at any time since 600 A.D.) had been the unbloody sacrifice of a piece of bread and a cup of wine called “Jesus Christ,” or to be exact, called “My Lord and my God” (Catholic Missal). Without this the Roman Catholic thinks that he is cut off from salvation, or at least will have to call for a priest on his deathbed and get the last rites of “extreme unction” to slip him in under the door. For fifteen hundred years the Catholic “priests” performed this cannibalistic rite of black magic in direct con­tradiction to the word of God in both Testaments (see Matt. 26:26 and comments in that commentary).

1. In the Bible, the Lord Jesus spoke in a language his disciples understood; the Catholics spoke in tongues until their church began to fall apart in Europe around 1950-1960 A.D.12

2. Our Lord spoke in a loud, distinct voice so that all of the disciples heard Him. The priests have been muttering (Isa. 8:19) with their backs turned to the “disciples” for over fifteen centuries.

3. Jesus said that this cup, “is my blood of the new testament” (Matt. 26:27-28), but every Baalite who corrected Him misquoted it as “this is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament mystery of the faith.” There are seven mysteries given to the body of Christ in the New Testament (see chapter 1), and not one of them is connected with the Lord’s Supper directly or indirectly.

4. Jesus broke the bread AFTER hesmJ“this is my body,” while the Baalites pronounce the words before they break the bread: obviously to convince the superstitious natives that the mumbo jumbo (“hocus- pocus”) they say does something to the bread.

| 5. The Lord Jesus placed the broken bread into the hands of the disciples, but the Baalites for fifteen centuries were sticking a wafer mto the MOUTHS of the parishioners.

I 6. The Lord Jesus “elevated” nothing at the Lord’s Supper.

7- TheLordJesusdidn’tsayonewordaboutthebreadorthe“wine” gcw wine—grape juice) being offered to God as a sacrifice, but the aa ites profess to be offering in the mass the body of Christ as a “sacrifice or ^e S*ns Quick and the dead.”

Ke h L°rc* Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of ME;” but ed charlatan says, “Solemnizing and communicating in the first

Ce the remembrance of the GLORIOUS MARY, ever Virgin.”

If the two operations are the same—which all Baal ites have to believe under pain of anathema13—then obviously you would have to be as crooked as a dog’s hind leg to see even a similarity: this crooked perverseness Thomas Aquinas called “faith.”14 (What else would you expect from a rascal who supported the Inquisition?) This was “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) according to ‘ ‘holy mother church, ’ ’ the church that dominated the Sardis period of church history.

The representatives of these psychotic madmen during the dictatorship of Pope Innocent IV (1245) sent out an embassy of Dominican monks to Cathay (China). This embassy was headed up by one Nicolas Anselm,15 who, after a long journey, arrived in Central Asia (1247) and delivered

an infallible fiat of the “Holy Father’ ’ at Rome to a leader of the Mongolian army. The great Khan got wind of it and called for the monks. He listened to their message and then sent them back to the Holy Papa, accompanied by two Tartar envoys. The exchanges between these rival rulers was so preposterous you wouldn’t have believed it. The stupid Catholic monks had delivered a letter from Innocent IV asking the Khan to come and bow down to the pope in Italy and acknowledge him as the ruler of the whole world, including Cathay; the Khan graciously returned the favor and told the pope to hit the dirt since he (the Khan) was the ruler of the world.16 (No doubt both of them sincerely believed they were‘ ‘accord­ing to their measure of faith.”)

Undaunted at contacting a fellow dictator, Pope Innocent dispatched a second embassy of two Franciscans with the full powers ‘ ‘of the keys” to make the lord of Tartary a vassal of the wine-drinking Italian. One of them went into the Mongol Empire by way of Bohemia, and the other went through Poland. They entered Mongolia in time to witness the enthronement of a new Khan. At this time the “orthodox Catholics (Franciscans) were horrified to find that Bible believing evangelists had already beaten them to the punch (see Pope Adrian, chapter 13, note 13; and Pope Gregory, chapter 12, notes 22-32), for they found Russian and Hungarian priests there with court officials who were Christians—but they weren’t CATHOLICS.17 When the Khan and his court got the latest message from “the Vicar of Christ” about his claims of being a Universa Bishop, the room was filled with roars of laughter (very irreverent a irreligious, I suppose, if you looked at it from the standpoint of a PaP*®'

The popes didn’t quit. In May of 1253 King Louis IX of sent out another mission (headed up by William D. Rubruquis). spoke to the Khan, who appeared very interested in the extravagant n^ sense put out by the popes. When Willie had finished,t’ ^time him why he was intrigued, for he had been considering for a ong

In the next fifty years the popes sent out Marco Polo and his family (1371), five monks (1278), and a mission led by a Franciscan (1289). When this Franciscan (John of Monte Corvino) found Bible believing people in south China (Peking, 1292) and got some of them to help him proselytize Christians into a Roman communion, the pope saw the time was ripe (as Adrian and Gregory had seen it: see above) to put out some lights (chapter 10, notes 3-4), so Pope Clement V made Johnny the Catholic archbishop of Peking.19 Naturally the political conquest of China was in the pope’s mind—“evangelizing the untold millions of lost souls” or “sending workers into the harvest fields” never were factors (and never have been factors) in papal religious politics.

But the Chinese, a Shemitic people, were far more intelligent in spotting a spiritual fakir than the Europeans who had been “conned” by Japhetic “evangelizers” (Gen. 9:26). In 1346 the papal legates in Cathay dropped slap out of sight, and when Pope Urban V (1370) sent eighty priests and an archbishop to see what had happened to “holy mother church” in the Far East, they were swallowed up and never reported back. These religious politicians simply vanished into thin air, and Peking had no more dealing with Christians until Bible believing missionaries entered the land with a King James Bible in their hands.20 Likewise, when the Japanese discerned the true nature of the Vatican state and its political designs—always disguised as an “apostolic CHURCH “—their monks and priests were banned by the government.21 According to Shem, what appeared to be a flock of sheep led by a shepherd was actually a pack of dogs led by a wolf.

The only lights (Biblical lights) that continued to shine in a dark place in the Sardis period were the Biblical offspring and spiritual descen­dants of the Novatians, Priscillians, Paulicians, Paterines, Messalines, Euchites, Nestorians, Sabellians, and Manichaeans. In the Sardis period they came to be known as Vaudois, Brethren, Bogomiles, Albigenses, Waldenses, Henricians, Bulgarians, Petrobrusians, Berengerians, Amold- >sts, and Cathari. Although they vary sometimes in their closeness or distance from the Catholic creedal statements (and they also vary in their attitudes towards some finer points of theology), they all had five things in common:

■ L They professed to believe that the Bible alone was the final author- tty in all issues when any issue came up.

f 2. They would not sprinkle or baptize babies.

■^ 3' They did not believe the state had any business dictating to a a church in matters of religious belief or practices.

I 4- They would not pray to the saints or pray for the dead.

5. They rejected the Roman Catholic mass.

Or to put it briefly, they were not good Catholics; they had not “kept the faith, baby.”

We shall examine their ministries in some detail in this chapter, but before doing so, a brief look at the signposts and highway markers on the historical “interstate” is needed so the student can orient himself and find the paths where the real evangelistic “heretics” witnessed for Jesus Christ.

The first of these highway markers says, “God wills it!” On the back side of the same sign it says, ‘ ‘It is the will of Allah! ’' (Two conflicting authorities.) With the Godhead thus divided against Himself and duties conflicting (all apostates recommend conflicting authorities), a religious war broke out in the Near East that was to last off-and-on for over two hundred years. As we could suspect, it was touched off by a Bible per­verting “pope.”

Otto (or Odo de Lagny) reigned on Constantine’s pagan throne as “pope” from 1088-1099. He was a Frenchman who became a monk and then an archdeacon. He became the prior of the monastery at Cluny and later was the chief advisor to Gregory VII. When he was elected as pope, he excommunicated another “Vicar of Christ” (Clement III) and Henry IV, an emperor. It was quite simple to excommunicate or dethrone another pope if you had a big enough police force behind you; all you had to do was to declare that he was an “anti-pope.” At one time there were three anti-popes fighting each other to get into the high chair (St. Peter’s),22 and all of them were calling each other “Anti­christ.” (It might have been well to believe all three of them.) Anyway, Otto called a council at Clermont in 1095 to help out Christians who were making pilgrimages to Palestine and were being mistreated there by the Moslems (chapter 12, notes 17-18). At the Council, Pope Urban (alias “Otto,” see above) got up and preached a fiery Adolph Hitler type of Beer Hall Putsch speech against the “infidels.” Otto (alias Urban, see above) promised as much, or more, than Adolph. He not only prom­ised to help pilgrims, but he also promised the emperor of Constantinople (Alexis) that he (with the help of the European armies, of course) woul “liberate Palestine from the unbelievers,” and then (to make sure that he didn’t have to raise the army himself) Otto (alias Urban) gracious y consented to pass out eternal life as an earned reward (Rom. 6.2 ) anyone who died or fell in combat during the “liberation. It did n0 occur to several hundred thousand “Catholics” that this would be Ji for a pope (who wouldn’tfight) in order to earn hell (“death is a *■ Rom. 6:23) rather than dying for Jesus Christ to get rewart* 1 6eav

In the next fifty years the popes sent out Marco Polo and his family (1371), five monks (1278), and a mission led by a Franciscan (1289). When this Franciscan (John of Monte Corvino) found Bible believing people in south China (Peking, 1292) and got some of them to help him proselytize Christians into a Roman communion, the pope saw the time was ripe (as Adrian and Gregory had seen it: see above) to put out some lights (chapter 10, notes 3^4), so Pope Clement V made Johnny the Catholic archbishop of Peking.'9 Naturally the political conquest of China was in the pope’s mind—“evangelizing the untold millions of lost souls” or “sending workers into the harvest fields” never were factors (and never have been factors) in papal religious politics.

But the Chinese, a Shemitic people, were far more intelligent in spotting a spiritual fakir than the Europeans who had been “conned” by Japhetic “evangelizers” (Gen. 9:26). In 1346 the papal legates in Cathay dropped slap out of sight, and when Pope Urban V (1370) sent eighty priests and an archbishop to see what had happened to “holy mother church” in the Far East, they were swallowed up and never reported back. These religious politicians simply vanished into thin air, and Peking had no more dealing with Christians until Bible believing missionaries entered the land with a King James Bible in their hands.20 Likewise, when the Japanese discerned the true nature of the Vatican

state and its political designs—always disguised as an “apostolic CHURCH*1—their monks and priests were banned by the government.21 According to Shem, what appeared to be a flock of sheep led by a shepherd

was actually a pack of dogs led by a wolf.

The only lights (Biblical lights) that continued to shine in a dark place in the Sardis period were the Biblical offspring and spiritual descen­dants of the Novatians, Priscillians, Paulicians, Paterines, Messalines, Euchites, Nestorians, Sabellians, and Manichaeans. In the Sardis period they came to be known as Vaudois, Brethren, Bogomiles, Albigenses, Waldenses, Henricians, Bulgarians, Petrobrusians, Berengerians, Amold- ists, and Cathari. Although they vary sometimes in their closeness or distance from the Catholic creedal statements (and they also vary in their attitudes towards some finer points of theology), they all had five things in common:

1 • They professed to believe that the Bible alone was the final author- *ty in all issues when any issue came up.

| 2. They would not sprinkle or baptize babies.

3- They did not believe the state had any business dictating to a a church in matters of religious belief or practices.

I • They would not pray to the saints or pray for the dead.

5. They rejected the Roman Catholic mass.

Or to put it briefly, they were not good Catholics; they had not “kept the faith, baby.”

We shall examine their ministries in some detail in this chapter, but before doing so, a brief look at the signposts and highway markers on the historical “interstate” is needed so the student can orient himself and find the paths where the real evangelistic “heretics” witnessed for Jesus Christ.

The first of these highway markers says, “God wills it!’’ On the back side of the same sign it says, “It is the will of Allah! ” (Two conflicting authorities.) With the Godhead thus divided against Himself and duties conflicting (all apostates recommend conflicting authorities), a religious war broke out in the Near East that was to last off-and-on for over two hundred years. As we could suspect, it was touched off by a Bible per­verting “pope.”

Otto (nr Odo de Lagny) reigned on Constantine’s pagan throne as “pope” from 1088-1D99, He was a Frenchman who became a monk and then an archdeacon. He became the prior of the monastery at Cluny and later was the chief advisor to Gregory VII. When he was elected as pope, he excommunicated another “Vicar of Christ” (Clement III) and Henry IV, an emperor. It was quite simple to excommunicate or dethrone another pope if you had a big enough police force behind you; all you had to do was to declare that he was an “anti-pope.” At one time there were three anti-popes fighting each other to get into the high chair (St. Peter’s),22 and all of them were calling each other “Anti­christ.” (It might have been well to believe all three of them.) Anyway, Otto called a council at Clermont in 1095 to help out Christians who were making pilgrimages to Palestine and were being mistreated there by the Moslems (chapter 12, notes 17-18). At the Council, Pope Urban (alias “Otto,” see above) got up and preached a fiery Adolph Hitler type of Beer Hall Putsch speech against the “infidels. ” Otto (alias Urban, see above) promised as much, or more, than Adolph. He not only prom­ised to help pilgrims, but he also promised the emperor of Constantinople (Alexis) that he (with the help of the European armies, of course) would “liberate Palestine from the unbelievers, ” and then (to make sure that he didn’t have to raise the army himself) Otto (alias Urban) gracious y consented to pass out eternal life as an earned rewardJRom. 6.2 ) anyone who died or fell in combat during the “liberation.’ It did no occur to several hundred thousand “Catholics” that this would be for a pope (whowouldn’tfight) in order to earn hell (“death” is » Rom. 6:23) rather than dying for Jesus Christ to get rewards ih cave

But in the spiritual condition the Catholic church was in by this time (a diseased hog wallow), one could expect little else. If ignorance could be pleaded for Catholics because of their Bible perversions and bloody crimes of 325-800 A.D., it certainly could be pleaded again now, for Catholics had been going downhill spiritually for six hundred years with the only bright lights in their midnight of apostasy (doing the work of Biblical evangelizing, chapter 11) being people who didn’t agree with them, didn’t follow their leadership, didn’t worship with them, and rejected (chapter 10, notes 43-47) their “shepherd,” the so-called “Vicar of Christ.”

Pope Urban outdid himself on this day, and Ranke (Weltgeschichte) says that his speech at Clermont, as a high-point of history, was worthy of being compared with the coronation of Charlemagne on Christmas day (800 A.D., chapter 12, note 68). According to Urban, everybody in the assembly at Clermont was ‘ ‘tfae elect of God, ’ ’ while every Turk was a member of ‘ ‘an accursed race/*23 So Jesus Christ Himself would give everyone doing the killing ‘ ‘an incorruptible crown’ ’ (a perversion of 1 Cor. 9:25). Since Urban already had his own crown^ obviously he didn’t have to lead the army or go with it. Upon the close of this inflammatory, rabble-rousing harangue, the deluded Papists jumped up and down, screaming “God wills it!”

What followed was the greatest non-Christian debacle since the burn­ing of Jerusalem to the ground under Titus (70 A.D.).

Swanns^of beggars, peasants, soldiers, adventurers, priests, and f .noblemen began to march on Jerusalem. The first mob was under Walter the Penniless. They marched through Hungary and were cut to pieces while trying to conquer Belgrade. Those who survived starved in the Bulgarian forests, while a few stragglers reached Constantinople.24 A second mob led by Peter the Hermit, numbering around forty thousand, \ marched through Bulgaria in the footsteps of their predecessors, who had left a path well marked by burned buildings, sacked monasteries, jmdcorpses. Peter’s bunch got to Constantinople in pitiful condition, and while they waited there for the pope’s other armies to show up, they began to maraud and plunder to stay alive (or else to get rich);

ey were finally surrounded and massacred by the Turkish calvary, and their bones were piled up in a pyramid.25 “God wills it!’’

third horde of ‘ ‘the elect’ ’ (see above) was massacred by Hungar- I . and another mob began its “crusade” by killing and robbing the I ews in Mainz; this rabble panicked and fled when they finally encoun- red 3 re®u'ar army fr°m Hungary. Out of fifteen thousand^ more than \«i_thoUsand were butchered 26 “God wills it!”


About thirty thousand troops composed the actual army that was going to do the fighting. The leaders were Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois, Bohemund, Raymund of Toulouse, Robert the Duke of Normandy, and Stephen of Blois, with Tancred (the cousin of Bohe­mund); these nobles represented the cream of French, Norman, and Italian “lords.” These armored knights took Nicaea (June 19, 1097), and a year later they captured Antioch, although their ranks were deci­mated by famine, pestilence, and desertion. They had to eat horseflesh, camels, dogs, and mice, and many of them died form drinking urine.27 They might have all defected if some priest had not “accidentally” dis­covered the “Lance of Longinus” (the one that pierced the Saviour’s side, according to the popes).28 Taking heart, the crusader^ went on and eventually conquered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. At that battle a UFO showed up (St. George was seen in full armor standing on the Mount of Olives29), and some very observant character noticed that Georgie had showed up at three o ’clock, which had been the hour of the Lord’s death (Matt. 27:45). Following this miraculous “Christian” vision based on the “holy Bible, ’ ’ the Christian crusaders were so inspired that a carnage followed that was absolutely indescribable. The Jews in Jerusalem were burnt with their synagogues along with the Turks (Gen. 12:1-4; Rom. 11:28-33). Three hundred Turkish captives who were promised mercy if they surrendered were butchered in cold blood. Saracen women and children were decapitated and disemboweled and were thrown off the city walls; blood ran to the horses’ bridles. “God wills it!’’

Urban II (alias Otto) died two weeks after the fall of Jerusalem, and so he didn’t have time to move into the temple of God (2 Thess. 2) and show himself that he was God (2 Thess. 2) on the Millennial throne (Rev. 20:4-6).

A Latin (Roman) Kingdom (chapter 12, note 68) was then set up at Jerusalem, with Godfrey as “king” (Matt. 5:35). He was succeeded by Baldwin (1100-1188). During this time the crusaders reared up castles all over Palestine to help “bring in the kingdom.” They conquered Caesarea, Ptolemais, Beirut, Sidon, and Petra. Other “kings” followed, with replacements and recruits for the occupation forces coming front Europe.30

However, Saladin arose (1138-1193) and united all the Mos entf»| leading them against this foreign army of occupation. Saladin co i with Guy of Lusignan at Hattin, a hill above Tiberias, and there the place where Christ was supposed to have said “Blessed are peacemakers,” etc.) Saladin decisively whipped the crusaders, t a humiliating defeat because at the time the Knights Temp ars

Hospitalers were in force and carrying “the true cross.’’31 This time it turned out for them to be the sign of a cursejchapter 7, notes 2-4). Jerusalem was soon retaken by the Moslems\(1187)J with the notable difference that this time there was no slaughtering or butchering of the inhabitants.32 “Allah,” the God of Saladin, evidently had more self­control than the bloody “god” of the Catholic popes.

The Second Crusade was led by two kings, Konrad III and Louis VII (both of France). Bernard of Clairvaux was the recruiting sergeant for this police action, and he stirred up thousands of Catholics in France and Germany to “jine up.” This time the army accomplished none of its objectives; famine, fever, and enemy attacks whittled it down to shav­ings, and instead of going on to attack Acre or Jerusalem, the army decided to attack Damascus and Edessa. They didn’t take either one. “God wills it!’’

The recruiting sergeant (Bernard) slipped out under the tent flap with this pious explanation: “Was Moses to blame in the wilderness who promised to lead the children of Israel to the promised land? Was it not rather the sins of the people which interrupted the progress of their journey?”33 Bernard blamed the troops. In his day the suckers were almost as plentiful as they are now. Bernard wasn’t Moses; the Gentiles weren ’t Jews; nobody promised any land to the popes or Catho­lics; and above all, Bernard forgot his Bible when he likened himself to Moses: Moses didn’t get into the land, either. (Bible study never has been a strong suit in a Catholic stacked deck.)

The Third Crusade was intended to get Jerusalem back from Saladin (1187). It was almost a complete failure, despite its glamorization in literature and art for nearly ten centuries. The leaders at this time were Frederick Barbarossa, Philip Augustus of France, and Richard I the Lion-Hearted of England. Acre was taken in July of 1191 after a two year siege, and the crusaders got the “true cross” back after the city capitulated.34 Richard murdered twenty-seven prisoners in cold blood, and Saladin retaliated by killing a few himself.35 Jaffa and Ascalon were captured. The crusaders never recaptured Jerusalem; instead, they signed a treaty with Saladin to protect pilgrims. On the way back to England to straighten out his brother John, Richard I was seized by Leopold

Duke of Austria and held for ransom. “God wills it!’’

The Children's Crusade (1212) was a nightmare of tragedy. Ashep- erd boy near Chartres, France (see notes 162-164), had a vision in ■ *ch he insisted that Christ told him to gather all the children in Europe ®nd walk down to the Mediterranean Sea, where God would dry it up 1 e he did for Moses: see Bernard above, using Moses) and let the

children “seek for the holy cross.”36 Since this expedition turned out to be a horror beyond telling, the Catholic writers insist that the shepherd boy received his orders from a Bible believing Christian (i.e., a “hereti­cal ’ ’ Albigensian).37 If the water had opened up, you could bet the pope’s Ouija board that the vision would have been “heaven sent” from Bernadette. At any rate, an army of thirteen thousand of these waifs between eight and seventeen years old reached Marseilles, from the Pyrenees, Brittany, and Germany. The “Red Sea” did not part. The pitiful band of children went on through the Alps to Genoa, Italy, where their number was reduced from thirteen thousand to about seven thou­sand. In the end they were deceived by two unscrupulous characters into boarding vessels going to North Africa (the birthplace of the Catholic church, chapters 5, 9). Two of these boats shipwrecked on the island of San Pietro, and the five ships that got to North Africa sold their living cargo to the Mohammedans for slaves.

Pope Gregory IX atoned for his silence (consent) throughout the whole affair by building a neat little chapel on San Pietro for the “mar­tyrs,”38 and when Innocent III tried to drum up another crusade, he appealed to the needless sacrifice of these children by saying, “While they rush to the recovery of the Holy Land, we sleep. They put us to shame. ”39 And there is the greatest verbal demonstration of papal ambi­guity that ever proceeded out of the mouth of a religious hypocrite for fifteen centuries. It is one in a series of thousands of examples of what we call “Vatican diplomacy”;40 an outstanding sample of how a pope thinks and speaks when dealing with his own sins and failures to stop senseless killing and dying in unholy and ungodly “causes."

For a modern example, the student of history should study the “sayings” of John Paul 7/(1979-1980) on his worldwide tour to Com­munist countries in an effort to rally Soviet Communists to the banner of International Socialism; all is as smooth and slick and sweet and greasy as blackstrap molasses poured on honey. If Pope Innocent had been an Irish pope in 1970, he would have said, “What a terrible thing is going on in the Emerald Isle these days! Let us all be instruments of peace and light a candle in the darkness rather than curse the darkness, let us pray for the day that all of the children of God in Ireland may be ONE!” No man can be elected as a Catholic pope until he lines up with the “god of this world” (Luke 4:6) and cultivates a tongue (1 rov. 26:23) like his FATHER (Rom. 16:17, 18, 20; John 8 Jn the Fourth Crusade (I20Q-12Q4) Constantinople.

but this time, instead of setting up a Holy Latin Empire the Roman popes decided to overthrow what was left of the

at Jerusalem.

dox church and empire, thereby converting Constantinople into a Latin satellite of Rome.41 Although Constantinople was “second best” to Jerusalem, still it was better than nothing. From Constantinople the Papists took the following items back to Europe with them: the head of St. Stephen, a thorn from the crown of thorns, Mary’s girdle, the Lord’s towel that He girded Himself with in John 13, one of John the Baptist’s arms, and the finger of Thomas that was thrust into Christ’s side (John 20:27); they also got the head of James the Just, a tear that Christ shed, and some of Christ’s actual BLOOD (!) that was shed on the cross.42 "God wills it!’’

Frederick 11 (Stupor Mundi: the wonder of the world) conducted''' the Fifth Crusade (1229). He was joined by William of Holland with some Germans and Danes and Andreas of Hungary. Frederick decided that discretion was the better part of valor, so he split up Jerusalem with the Moslems and then crowned himself king JMarch 19, 1229). Pope Gregory IX (alias something or other) never did appreciate anyone on a throne in Jerusalem unless it was himself, so he excommunicated Freddy.43

The last crusade took place in 1248-1270 under St. Louis (Louis

IX ofFrance).. Itwas a monumental flop. In vain did Pope Gregory"

X try to get another crusade in gear: the valve heads and pistons^ were worn out. In 1289 A.D. Tripoli was lost, and Acre surrendered to the Mohammedans in 1291 The description of the last ditch stand of the Knights Templars and Hospitalers at Antioch is given in its most lurid and accurate particulars in the work by Harold Lamb called Iron Men and Saints. The siege of Acre (1291) and its destruction is found in the last chapter of the work The Flame of Islam. The parting shot to the Catholic crusaders is sent in a message from Baibars, “the one-eyed Panther” (see Mark of the Beast, 1959), who did not fail to inform the pope’s “bully boys” that his own people (half-breed Negroid Egyptians) had raped the French, German, and Italian women in the sanctuary of the Catholic churches while they despoiled the altars, burning Bibles and breaking crosses on the bodies of victims. Baibars left no doubt tn anyone’s mind about the power of ANY pope in Palestine.

"God wills it!”

This hasty and intemperate battle cry which came from the lips of tical Papists, after an appeal by Urban to imitate the deeds of rlemagne (who “destroyed pagans and infidels,” note 23), found •natch-meet in Islam: "It is the will of Allah!” In this two hundred long skirmish, “Allah” put the fictitious “god” of Charlemagne 1 1 e popes out of business.

A product of the Catholic crusades were the three great military orders: the Knights of St. John, the Knight Templars, and the Teutonic Knights; from such titles there developed a name for the underground fifth column of subversives in America (1900-1990)—“the Knights of Columbus.’’ The three orders were courted by the popes, made rich by kings, and idolized by the people; they were the SS of the pope’s Gestapo (Heydrich, Goering, Himmler, Bormann, and Hitler were all Papists, and none were excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church). The Knights of St. John were French, the Teutonic Knights, obviously, were German, and the Templars were somewhere on the Rhine or Alsace-Lorraine, as far as their membership went. The orders of St. John were called Hospitalers; they were hyper-wealthy, with immense privileges granted them by the popes.44 (Later they were killed by the popes in order to regain this wealth—see note 46). They went to Cyprus after the defeat at Acre and then fell themselves into decay about 1500 A.D. The Templars met their end tragically in 1312 A.D. after growing to a membership of over nine thousand. They were indi­vidually wealthy, and their organization was tax exempt. The head of this order was called a “Grand Master,” as in Masonry. But the order outlived its usefulness, and Philip the Fair of France decided to have it disbanded. When the reigning ‘ ‘pope” (Clement V) refused to cooper­ate, Philip had all of the members of the order in France arrested and thrown in jail.45 In the summer of 1308 the pope decided to “drift with the current” (that’s what all popes do when they don’t have the guts to swim against it), so he ordered prosecution of the “Knights” wher­ever they might still be found. The Templars were charged with spitting on the cross, worshipping an idol (an outlandish charge coming from a pope! See chapter 13), and offences against moral decency such as sodomy. They were accused of holding “black masses” and meeting with the devil in the form of a BLACK CAT (CAT-holic, see Mark of the Beast, 1959), and having intercourse with female demons.

The king, the pope, the Dominican order of monks, and the Univer­sity of Paris all lined up against these veterans of foreign wars (the Cru-, sades), and in Paris thirty-six of them died under torture, fifty-four o them were burned at the stake, and hundreds of them perished in prison. This sanguinary order was given by Pope Clement V. On March , 1312, Clement issued a decree abolishing the order. They were is banded, all their property and wealth was split up between church an state officials (HEW), and that was the end of them. God wills

The reader must understand that by this time torturing, and beheading were common punishments passed out by the qg,

successors of “Blessed Simon Peter” and the sons of “Holy Mary,” the Mother of “the faithful.” The most expedient excuse for torturing a man to death to get his property was to accuse him of witchcraft (see the “black cat,” above). Unlike the Salem trials, Holy Mother church managed to do away with about fifty thousand people on these charges.46 A “witch” in Roman Catholic mythology was anyone who didn’t agree with the hierarchy in political and economic matters (chapter 15, notes 47-48). What had begun as declaring a man a heretic if he did not profess to believe certain doctrinal things that dealt with religion, wound up in declaring a man a heretic if he didn’t shell out MONEY or didn’t allow spies to operate in his government cabinet.47 John XXII, Augustine, Leo XIII, “The Interrogatory ’’ of Bernard Guy (1320), Olradus, pro­fessoral Bologna and Avignon (1325), Alexander IV (1258-1260), and the University of Paris (1378) all helped the priests and bishops to kill as many anti-Catholics as possible in the shortest possible time.48 Burn­ing and torturing of these nonconformists was official Vatican policy by the Roman Catholic popes themselves.49

Two college graduates (Alexandrian Cult for Christian education) who were Dominican Inquisitors (Heinrich Institoris and Jacob Sprenger) wrote a book called The Witch’s Hammer (1486), which prescribed holy water and salt for getting rid of demons, and the Lord’s Prayer and crosses forgetting rid of hexes.50 For the unfortunate Waldenses, Cathari, Albigenses, “New Manichaeans,” Vaudois, and Bulgarians caught in the coils of the Catholic cobra, there awaited charges of cohabitating with the devil, kissing his posterior parts, riding broomsticks, partici­pating in sex orgies, stepping on crosses, urinating on the “host, ’ ’ eating children, and casting “spells” on people. Thirty thousand “witches” were murdered in a hundred and fifty years51 in northern Italy (chapter 10, notes 91-95); over one hundred women were burned at the stake in twenty-five years.52

When the Catholic historians attempt to gloss over these ghastly killings, they like to refer to the battles of Cromwell (1649-1658) and the Salem witchcraft trials (1600’s). Such a perverted comparison could only come from a perverted mind. A conservative estimate of the number of anti-Catholics who have been killed outside of armed combat (battle) tn fifteen centuries would come to about 2,500,000people; Dowling, citing Scott’s Church History, lists 1,000,000 Waldenses in France, 36,000 hristians in Holland, 150,000 put to death by the Spanish Inquisition,

.0(X) Bible believing people slain by Jesuits, plus numbers that come c $0,000,000 murders from 325 to 1870 A.D.53 To hide behind the lns of Puritan witch burners who managed to do away with a half a



dozen people is the height and depth of depravity. It is the equivalent of saying that the SS concentration camp system of Germany (1939-1945) was justified because of the camps set up by the British in Africa during the Boer War (1899-1902).

Throughout all of this godless depravity, the conflicts between the emperors and the popes grew. It could not be otherwise, for both pro­fessed to be temporal rulers of geographical and economic areas. Fur­thermore, after the Crusades, European rulers had a much tighter grasp on their nobles and vassals (chapter 13, note 55). The war had produced some “hero-kings” who had proved that they were able to unify armies and fight while “holy Papa” stayed home granting indulgences; this ( lowered the Papa’s stock considerably. The kings who followed 1200 A.D. were not as easy to deal with as the “barons” and “lords” of 800-1000 A.D. Incidents like Henry IV’s trip to Canossa (1077), the murder of Thomas a Becket (1170), King John’s signing of the Magna Charta (1215), and Philip the Fair’s correspondence with Boniface (1301) showed that “god” (chapter 12, note 68) was having a hard time crown­ing the right “Caesar” (chapter 12, note 68). His “leadership by the Holy Ghost” was not as infallible in practice as in theory. (He must have been under the influence of alcohol when he crowned Philip the Fair.) The “Babylonian Captivity ” of the church (1309-1379 or 1305- 1377) witnessed two holy cities with two ' ‘holy fathers ’ ’ who both turned out to be an/z-holy fathers.

< The Crusades became a whiplash to the rascals who had invented and encouraged them. Scores of Europeans came back from the Near East completely disillusioned with papal aims and objectives. Thousands more had seen with their own eyes the wisdom, learning, art, culture, and riches of the “infidels”;54 and no Papist was about to convince them (if they were unconverted themselves, which hundreds of themi were) that the God of the. Christian was any smarter or more powerful i than the God of Saladin.

Greek grammars by Greek grammarians began to pop up here and , there in Europe following 1230 A.D.,55 and there came about a revival t of interest in Greek culture and Byzantine culture (instead of Roman) following the year 1200 A.D. All of this forecasted no good for the| fascist dictators ruling in Rome, for as surely as God made pretty little volcanoes, any manuscripts, books, grammars, or lexicons from Asia | Minor would eventually erupt into the Greek Textus Receptus of t e King James Bible (see chapter 3). During this period Wycliffe j 1384, the “Morning Star of the Reformation”) appears, and w'^ a passel of street preachers who teach and preach that the Bib e

the pope) is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.56 Coupled with this ghastly “heresy” is a ready-made audience of people who are being exposed to Bible believing preachers on the Continent, many of whom are declaring that not only is the pope not the “Vicar of Christ,” but that he is the ANTICHRIST (Rev. 13:18): old “six-six- six” himself.57

The Crusades had opened trade routes to the east; these served as an inspiration for Columbus to find a “shorter route” to Cathay. His discoveries eventually opened the door to persecuted dissenters in Europe so they had somewhere to run besides into the arms of the Turks (west to east). Furthermore, the Crusades opened the door to small towns, small businesses, and trading markets, which eventually developed into a Third Estate—the scourge of Lenin and Marx: the Bourgeois. Not only this, but the Crusades also settled in history once and for all the matter of the direction that Biblical Christianity was to take: it was to go according to the plan laid down in the King James Bible ofl 611 —east to west (see Acts 16:1-6 and Gen. 4:16 with comments in those commen­taries). These good “side effects” of the debacle are interpreted by most church historians as omens of “peace on earth, good will to men,” and all of the A-millennial and Post-millennial historians (Barnes, Vedder,

Fisher, Drummond, Walker, Schaff, et al.) look upon the Crusades as further Biblical fulfillment of an evolutionary process that gradually was to ‘ ‘bring in the kingdom. ’ ’58 Such irrational private interpretations

are not to be superimposed over the facts of history or the statements of scripture. The crusaders also had shown the popes (after Urban II) how to handle Bible believing “hell raisers” or “trouble makers” in Europe, who were going around “splitting churches.” All you had to do was sic a king or a duke on them and let him raise an army, and then (in the name of “Holy Mary,” for the “glory of God,” etc.) kill them. That way you (the pope) could come out of mass murder smelling like a rose. “God wills it!’’

The trouble makers (anti-Catholics) in the Sardis period are more plentiful and more effective than at any time in church history up until 1200 A.D. The first of these will be the Bogomiles (sometimes Bogmiles or Bogomils), whom Schaff and Latourette (both professing Christians) call an heretic sect. ” The Bogomiles, as the Paulicians and Albigenses, ^re always associated in the minds of reprobates like Schaff, Pope °’ Latourette, and Pope Innocent with the heresy of Mani (“Mani- C.ean‘sm’ ’’chapter 12, notes 92-98), whose main crime was his theory ® ut what took place between Genesis 1:1 andGenesis 1:3. Toassociate anichaeans with Gnostics, the Catholic heretics of Constantine’s time

(and later) pretended that “dualism” was a form of heresy. This over­looked the Biblical fact that God versus the devil, heaven as an alternative to hell, righteousness opposed to wickedness (see the preface to the Bible Believer’s Commentary on Proverbs, 1972), up instead of down, back instead of forth, and black instead of white is the realistic view of sane men. Perhaps the silence of church historians about Satan’s part in history (see preface) is an indication of their rejection of Biblical dualism: it is certainly a Bible truth found anywhere in the New Testament (Matt. 6:24; Rev. 3:15; Gal. 6:8; etc.).

At any rate, the Bogomiles (Bogomile in Schaff) came up from Asia Minor into Bulgaria; the chief information we have on them is from their bitterest enemies—the so-called ‘ ‘orthodox’ ’ Catholics. Philip Schaff allows for no origins of the Bogomiles before the tenth century, forget­ting that their ancestors (the Paulicians) came from the same place back in the sixth and seventh centuries. Both groups came from a place in Asia Minor, through Constantinople, headed for the Balkans.59 One of their outstanding pastors was a physician named Basil, who was burned at the stake by the Greek Orthodox Emperor Alexis Comnenus I. Whatever fault the orthodox ecclesiastical politicians may have found with ‘ ‘dualism, ’ ’ their real hatred for the Bogomiles was based on doctrines much more substantial and much easier to define: the Bogomiles declared that the Catholic “mass” was a sacrifice to DEVILS,60 that the church ‘ ‘ fathers ’ ’ who contradicted the Bible werefalse prophets, that organized Roman Catholicism was Satanic, and, above all, that they would baptize no one but an adult believer.61 (Why pick on “dualism” when you have that much to work with?)

The Bogomiles were anti-Catholic; in church history those who are anti-Catholic have to be either heathen or heretics because most

church histories are written by people who major in anti-church history (chapter 12, notes 5-7). Throughout the entire anti-church history of Catholicism, every group who believed what the Bogomiles believed was called Arian or Manichaean.62 They appear mainly in northern Italy and southern France, and when they do, their name has been changed again in order to cut off from history any Biblical succession whic would connect them with the New Testament. In France and Italy they were called “Cathari.”63 The term “Cathari” in the minds of enemies64 was associated with a BLACK CAT (notes 45-47) by t ng the first three letters of the word “CAThari” out and using them I a sign for the “cult’ ’ (like the old IX (iota-chi) deal the Catholics pu e^ off on the ‘ ‘fish representing Christ, ’ ’ see chapter 9). It seemed to na never occurred to any Catholic engaged in this alphabet soup game

the word CAT contained the first three letters in CATholic (see Mark of the Beast, 1959). And in addition, the word “Cathari” was formed from the Greek (KaOapi^co, catharidzo), meaning to purify or cleanse, whereas the word “Catholic” meant “wholly given to a CAT.” Very often hypocrites are looking in mirrors when they attack “heretics.”

Forgetting that it was Eusebius (way back in 330 A.D.) who called the Novations ‘ ‘Cathari, ’ ’65 the historians tell us that the Bogomiles and Paulicians became “Cathari” or “New Manichaeans”: that is, “here­tics” in the eyes of the pope. In southern France these Cathari were called “Albigenses,” and in the Balkans they were called Bulgarians (or Bulgari, Bugares, orBugres); other titles wereTesserants, Textores, and Publicani (and later Bogards, Picards, etc.). The trick in every case was to produce the impression that true New Testament succession was CATHOLIC because the godless reprobates in that political organization had stuck to one NAME since they adopted it while the other groups couldn’t possibly prove New Testament succession because their NAMES changed. By changing the names of anti-Catholic Bible believers con­stantly, you could prove that your church (Catholic) was the “one true church.”

The papal method of dealing with these people who would not wor­ship Mary, sprinkle babies, use crosses, pray to the dead, etc., was the simple and quite effective: they burned them alive. In 1022, fifteen were tried and thirteen of them were burned at the stake.66 Some of them in Liege (1025) were asked to adore the crosses and take the Eucha­rist; they refused and were all burned at the stake. In 1145 A.D. eight men and three women were burnt at Cologne. At Rheims (where Hincmar had been, chapter 12, note 119) in 1157, the Papists burned some more of them. In 1161 some of them were whipped and branded during the reign of a “true son of the faith,” the Emperor Henry II.67

There were so many of the Cathari popping up in Europe around ' the time of the Crusades that the Dominican Rainerius gives 4,000,000 as a safe estimate of their numbers.68 In southern France, where the / Novatians, Donatists, and Paterines had prepared the way, the Catholic^ priests were made objects of ridicule (Matt. 23:24). All Cathari taught the Roman Catholic church was not the true church. If they were telling the truth, this meant that the missionary endeavors of the Franciscans, ominicans, Augustinians, and Jesuits in China, Japan, and India were ; orthless, for they had nothing to do with the “true faith,” though this E ow it is stated by K.S. Latourette.69 Dark Age Cathari taught two

basic truths from the start: 1) The pope was the Antichrist (Matt.

’ ' J°hn 4; John 5:43), and 2) The Roman Catholic church was the

WHORE of Revelation 7 7.70 However they may have been misguided in their interpretations of the Old Testament and the “classes of believ­ers,” they didn’t miss the main point: the main point was that those in the Sardis period who professed to be orthodox in their Christology, anthropology, soteriology, theology, and ecclesiology were Satanic in their attitude toward Biblical authority, Biblical preaching, Biblical sal­vation, and Biblical conduct. The Cathari renounced priestly vestments, altars, and crosses, and they called the sign of the cross the mark of the beast.71 Since all of them were Bible believers, none of them gave credence to indulgences or any such “isle of somewhere” as “purga­tory.” Dr. Lea, an eminent authority on the Catholic Inquisition, says that the Cathari had more martyrs on their list who never defected from their beliefs than any other group.72

The second outstanding group of street preaching Bible believers were the Waldenses; they lived completely apart from the Catholic church, and they were the strictly Biblical sect of the Middle Ages, coming from Asia Minor (see chapter 3) to southern France. From there they spread into the Piedmont, Austria, and Germany; they supposedly derived their name from Peter Waldus (or Valdez)73 and were called “Sandalati” or the “Poor Men of Lyons.” (Other writers insist the word Waldenses—valley dwellers—is the simple derivative from “valley” in Italian, French, and Spanish.74)

The Waldenses appeared out of nowhere at the Third Lateran Coun­cil of 1179 A.D. They asked Alexander III to let them preach on the streets and even gave him a copy of their Bible which they had translated from the Old Latin of the King James Bible.15 They were forbidden to preach and were laughed out of the council.76 Later their Bibles were committed to the flames, and eighty of their preachers were burned at the stake in Strasbourg (1212). They spread out into Austria, Swabia, Kbnigsberg, Poland, Bavaria, Bohemia, and Passau. They were very active in the distribution of scriptures since they esteemed the Bible to be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Where popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests refused to abide by its precepts, they I were to be ignored.77 According to Waldensian beliefs, laymen coul I preach the Bible, and any layman could baptize a believing adult, but I no one was to baptize infants.16 They went much beyond this and a so taught eternal security for the believer and his justification by fait m I the finished atonement of Jesus Christ.79 In short, they were Bible be iev I Jng Baptists at work all over Europe more than three hundred yea I "before Luther or Calvin were born. Dr. Miller, a Presbyterian ,t I of Church History), accuses the Baptist historian Jones of falsifying

in regards to the strongly Baptistic doctrines of the Waldenses.80 A cer­tain Dr. Rice also made the same charge, with the main issue being the accounts of Paul Perris versus Mr. Jones on the report of the commis­sioners to Louis XII of France about the Waldenses. Both charges (Rice and Miller) were proved to be deliberate slander.81 The Waldenses never, baptized infants or even children. As all Cathari, the Waldenses pro­nounced the Roman Catholic church to be the Babylonian WHORE of Revelation 17.82 What practical Christian truths St. Francis, Dominic, and Bernard were able to pick up (and counterfeit) they got from the Waldenses, not their own ecclesiastical hierarchy. The monk’s counter­feit of Waldensian Christianity—imitate the poor and the “choice of poverty” bit—was very successful in leading thousands of strays back into the arms of the Babylonian Whore.83

The Albigenses were the spiritual descendants of the Novatians,\ Arians, Donatists, and other assorted “heretics” who went north of’ Rome through Lombardy into southern France. Councils beginning with Toulouse (1119) issued articles against these heretics and called upon the secular powers to punish them. Innocent III believed that Bible believ­ing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Moslems, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of the Whore’s family in her own backyard —Europe. So Innocent III sponsored four “crusades” to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him. Raymond rebelled against the thought of murdering his loyal subjects for the sake of a foreign dictator, so he was excommunicated by the pope's legate.84 In order to raise the necessary Mafia, the Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army suffi­cient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth to kill Moslems (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life). The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent’s Sunday morning messages as “servants of the old serpent. ”85 Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces. ,

Now Raymond VI (against his own, personal convictions) had to\ ack up, for he saw the “rising tide.” He reversed field and went along | W1th the “majority of recognized scholars” and “qualified Biblicists” ® is day to retain his standing.86 In July of 1209 A.D. an army of 60 ^at^°'*cs attacked Beziers (also “Bezieres”) and murdered

’MyO unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole t

city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as “heretics,” the papal legate (in the best traditions of Pope Pius XII87) told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for ‘ ‘the Lord knows His own. ’ ’ At Carcassonne, France, all the inhab­itants were driven out of town with nothing but the clothes they had on. At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the “heretics” were cut off by the “faithful.”88 “God wills it! ’’ The machinery of the Inquisition was then put into full action (1229), and in 1233 and 1234 A.D. Pope Gregory IV raised a German army to kill several hundred thousand more Albigenses near Bremen and Oldenburg.89

The Waldenses passed through thirty-six persecutions, the worst being the crusade of Simon de Montfort90 (1208). Pope Innocent III calls the Waldenses “Samson’s foxes. They appear to be different, but tKelr tails are tied together. ”91 (A candid admission from a bloody killer that thirty different names for heretics couldn’t break the history of New Testament, Biblical succession.) The Waldenses were driven out of their homes in the wintertime and forced into peaks of mountains or into barren forests where they starved or froze to death. Of the “godly” Dominicans who arranged their destruction, they said that they were ‘ 'Domini Canes ’ ’ (the Lord’s dogs—Phil. 3:2).92 These Christians were cast from high precipices and dashed to pieces; some were driven into caverns, and by filling the mouths of these caves with lighted fagots they were suffo­cated. Tottering old men, babies, and children were hung in cold blood, ripped open and disemboweled, pierced with prongs, drowned, racked limb from limb, stabbed to death, torn to pieces by dogs, and crucified with their heads downward.

This was the logical end and predestinated outcome of Augustine’s positive view of Roman Catholicism (chapter 7, notes 33-39). If dissi­dents were accursed (chapter 6, notes 79-88), then certainly God wanted them killed, and since a good, orthodox Catholic should practice what he professed...! The furious hatred which these vicious Catholic apostates had against the Waldenses, Cathari, and Bogomiles was due to the nega­tive preaching of these groups: all Bible preaching is negative where it deals with Rome (see chapter 2). The Bible says absolutely nothing positive about Rome or Egypt. If Catholicism is “Roman,’ then t^'er^ is only one attitude that a real Christian can take towards it: the Bib ic attitude (Acts 12; 28; Dan. 2; Rev. 17; and John 18-19). I

The Inquisition was directly established by the pope, who not on | gave Dominic the authority to be the first inquisitor, but throug the ages enforced the Satanic system by bulls. Pope Alexandei / (

established an Inquisition in Italy and gave his subjects an exhortation to help them out.93 Pope Urban /K(1262) issued a bull asking the office of the Inquisition to exterminate heretics so that the “vine of the Lord” might bear the “fruit of Catholic purity.”94 Pope Urban didn’t know his “vines” (Deut. 32:31-32). Genocide—the extermination of whole populaces—was not an innovation of Herr Hitler and the Nazi party; it had been official papal doctrine put forth by the Roman Catholic church into practice more than six hundred years before the Catholic Hitler was born. x

Clement IV (1311) stated that a bishop must have an inquisitor with him at all times to expose heretics to torture.95 Saint (!) Liguori says that on the testimony of one man a Christian can be put to torture.96 (Of course, Liguori would not think of calling an Albigensian or a Cathari or a Waldensian a “Christian.” Christians, to St. Liguori, would be the Catholic bishops, monks, and inquisitors in charge of TORTURING.)

“Saint” Dominic is regarded as the founder of this Satanic, anti-' church establishment. After finding that armies of 500,000 men could not kill all of the Bible believers in Europe, Dominic was selected by the pope as the man in charge of finishing off the work. He was a Span­iard, born in 1170, and the founder of the Dominican order of monks/ The Inquisition was organized into Signori Patentati, Consultori, Familghari (men who presided over the councils), and the Avocato De Rei; and it had Cancelliere, Mandataries, and Barrigelos to assist them. The modern terms are Waffen SS, Gestapo, Bunker Commandos, Kapos, Block leaders, NKVD, labor camps, and protective custody (OSHA). The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was\ founded for the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It/ spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (fourteenth century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). ,It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.

With 125 curses placed on the head of every Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian in the United States (Council of Trent, 1546), the Roman Catholic church still allows herself a “pure conscience” with the “true faith” while murdering Bible believers.97 An Unholy Mother Whore (Rev. 17), she had been true to her commis­sion and calling. She is a bloody cutthroat (Rev. 17) and will lie her .ay around the charges no matter what history records. Nowhere in ® urch history does she reveal her true and lethal nature (the Catholic F urch never changes, Rome the eternal city, all roads lead to Rome, I •) more than in the Sardis period (the period of the “Red Ones,”

Rev. 3:1), where she had unlimited power to back up her convictions and was not hampered with any restraints. The Inquisition was the evo­lutionary and logical development of anti-church history as taught by Origen, Papias, Cyprian, Clement, Eusebius, Augustine, and the popes. It proves that the ‘ ‘growth and expansion of Christianity ’ ’ from 500-1400 A.D. was also the growth and expansion of a depravity and wickedness the like of which the world had never seen until that time: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

These Catholic butchers do not cease their killing, looting, and tor­turing with the end of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; they go right on into the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For example, in the seventeenth century (1641) the Catholics in Ireland fixed October 23 Tthefeast of IghatiusLoydla) as a massacre day for Christians and pro­ceeded to kill 150,000 Protestants in oncifeyj, which is more than twice as many Catholics as were killed in armed combat fightingjOliver" ^Cromwgll (T599-1658) in a year.9* Bible believing Protestants were buried in the ground up to their necks till they starved; one man waT forced to go to mass, after which they ripped him open and let him bleed to death. Another they sawed asunder, slit his wife’s throat, dashed out the brains of his young child, and threw the corpse into a pigsty to be eaten by swine." Several_Christians were strippednaked, fastened toTiorses by ropes placed around their middles, and dragged through bogs until they expired^Thousands were mutilated by having arms, hands. and legs cut off and by being left toTHeed'to death; three hundred were .drowned in one day in the county of Tyrone, and fifty or sixty were 1 _put into one house which was set on fire, While these “faithful sons” of “Holy Mother church” (carrying out “the expansion of Christian-j ity”) killed babies and women, they would holler, “Your soul to thg__ dgyiP’’100 Catholic historians like Weber and White 101 like to pretend." that none of this happened, and that the only killing going on in Ireland^ was done by Cromwell. Whitewashed hypocrites often have a persecu­tion complex (John 11:47-51).

Under Pope Clement VIII, as late as January 25, 1655, armed mobs I were following up Bible believers in the Piedmont area; and, backe up by the Duke of Savoy (Catholic), the following ‘ ‘missionary program was carried out: Giovanni Andrea Michialin (La Torre) had three o ] his children hacked to pieces in front of him, and a soldier picke up I the fourth by the legs and dashed its brains out on a wal 1.'02 The Catho w ■ proceeded to roast a ten year old girl over a fire and then killed a mo 9 with her infant, after pursuing her into a cave in the woods.105 Gio^^S Rostagnal (eighty years old) had his nose and ears cut oft an si



taken from the fleshy parts of his body till he bled to death. Jacob Birone, a school master, was stripped naked, had the nails of his toes and fingers tom out with red-hot pincers, and had a cord tied around his middle; he was then led through the streets with a Catholic on each side cutting a gash in his flesh till he nearly bled to death. Every few minutes he was asked, “WILL YOU GO TO MASS?” (see chapter 13, notes 83-95). Since he believed, as all Paulicians and Bogomiles believed, that “mass” was of the devil,104 they had to cut off his head and throw his corpse

into the river. Jacob Roseno was commanded to pray to the saints, but since no Manichaean, Bulgarian, or other “heretic” would do such a blasphemous thing (1 Tim. 2:5), the soldiers beat him violently and then fired several shots into him. During the agonies of death they cried to him, “Will you pray to the saints?” To which he answered (as any “trouble making fanatic” would), “NO.” They decapitated him with a sword.105 The Catholics proceeded to cut off the genital organs of a servant of Jacopo Michalino of Robio, applying a burning candle to the stumps to stop the blood; they then tore off his nails with pincers and killed him by tying a cord around his head so tight that his eyes and brains came out.106

And let no one think for a moment that these killings were excep­tional cases of Catholic laymen under bad leadership or temporarily driven to “excesses.” The original order for exterminating ALL Wal­denses came from the pen of the pope himself (Pope Innocent, a Latin bull issued in 1487).107

Daniel Rambaut of Villaro, a father of a large family, was arrested and was visited by several “priests” who attempted to get him to save his life by turning Papist. The issues they presented before him (as we would expect) had nothing to do with the Trinity,nor “dualism” (chapter 12, notes 92-98), nor the nature of Christ (chapter 8, notes 3-16), nor predestination (chapter 13, note 78). The issues were clear: if he wanted to stay alive he must believe in purgatory, transubstantiation, the infalli­bility of the pope, and the remission of sins by praying to dead saints. Anyone could guess what happened. When a saved, Bible believer is faced with the unholy demands of a demon-possessed Catholic, only one thing can happen if the Catholic is armed. The priest ordered one Joint of his finger cut off every day till all his fingers were gone, then same thing with his toes, and then finally one hand and one foot ^®ch day till he bled to death.108 The only way you can take a Bible 4 ever s religion from him is to kill him. You cannot take it away stealing his candles, busting his beads, killing his priest, burning E *ble, ordumping out his holy water (Judg. 18:24). All Roman Cath­

olics know this instinctively; their own “religion’ ’ forces them to acknowl­edge it.

A Christian lady named Constantia Bellione was arrested,and she was told that if she would renounce the devil and go to “mass”(chapter 13, notes 98-105) she would live. She said, “If I should comply with your desire and go to mass I should be sure to meet him [the devil] in a variety of shapes.” They ordered slices of her flesh to be cut off from several parts of her body, but this only prompted her to say, ‘ ‘What horrid and lasting torments will you suffer in hell for the trifling and temporary pains which I now endure.” They shot her.109

To help offset this bloody history of demon-possessed Catholics, the British Broadcasting Corporation (in conjunction with Pope Paul VI) presented a terrifying narration (1970) of the days of Bonnie Prince Charlie and Lord Cumberland. The gist of this historic movie was that the poor Catholics in Scotland suffered such terrible injustices at that hands of the English in one year that one should not mention the twelve century record of Catholic atrocities—which would have made English Protestants look like apostles. To further brainwash Europeans with this lopsided documentation of the truth, the BBC then refused to let Avro Manhattan present his book Religious Terror in Ireland over the air waves of the BBC or its TV channels.110 (The news media in England and in America never dares print both sides of a Bible versus Catholicism dispute: it never has and never will.)

Now, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries belong to the Phila­delphia period, but we have made reference to them at this time to remind the student of anti-church history that “Rome never changes” and that ‘ ‘the spirit of the times ’ ’ is not in the least connected with the persecuting spirit of Catholic bigots like Hitler, Pius XII, Franco, Mussolini, Pope John Paul, and Ted Kennedy. The amount of killing is never determined by the times; it is determined by how much killing can safely be done without reprisals.111

The Synod of Tours (1163) called upon the bishops and clergy t(M forbid Catholics from mingling with Albigenses and having any com­mercial dealings with them (see Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws); Rome has always been terrorized by the thought that any of their membership sho come face-to-face in a mouth-to-mouth confrontation with a Bible behev ing Christian.112 The ThirdLateran Council (1117) gave kings and princ®® power to make slaves out of Bible believers. At Toulouse(V222)bis were commanded by the pope to appoint one priest and one laymMB in every parish to search for “heretics.” Peter of Aragon (119) ished Bible believers from his dominion and threatened them wt u

ing at the stake if they returned.113 Don Jayme I (1226) forbade anyone from reading the Bible in his own language.114 At his coronation, Frederick Il condemned all Bible believers to having their tongues torn out or being burned at the stake if they disregarded any teaching of Catholicism on any point."5

There is no use to go into a long and detailed account of the proceed­ings and tortures that were carried out by the Inquisition. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Popery in Its Social Aspects (Rev. R.P.G. Blakeney) have scores of cases documented with eyewitnesses.116 The Courier Francois shows that when the Lisbon, Portugal, facilities for the Inquisi­tion were examined they revealed exactly the same cell set-ups and guard set-ups described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago (two volumes) and by Haralan Popov in his autobiography on thirteen years in Communist Bulgaria (Torturedfor His Faith). There is nothing new under the sun. ""

Every frightful torture that could be invented by the depraved nature of a Christ rejecting sinner was practiced or encouraged by the loathsome “partakers of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (the monks, priests, bish­ops, archbishops, and archdeacons): pouring boiling oil and tar on vic­tims, racking their bones out of joint, whipping the soles of their feet with rods, disemboweling them and leading them around by their intes­tines, running the women through with spears from their crotch to their necks,117 tightening chains on their foreheads till their eyes came out, planting firebrands on the breasts of women and the genital organs of men, cutting off pieces of breasts with scissors, raking flesh with graters, grilling naked bodies on iron grills and eating them,118 putting the thumb­screws on people, cutting off their tongues, cutting off their lips, noses, ears, fingers, and toes, breaking their bones one at a time, putting gun­powder in their mouths and lighting it, burying them alive strapped into coffins, pulling needles and wires through their flesh, etc., etc. Hellish Mother church was never outdone by Russia (Communism: 1920-1970) or Germany (Nazism: 1933-1945). Hellish Mother church taught her children (Rev. 17:1-6) how to handle Bible believing Christians, or any­one who was “anti-establishment."(The historian Lorent says that in"? Spain from 1480-1498 over eight thousand people were burned alive and ninety thousand were subject to other punishments. From 1499-1506 rnore than sixteen hundred were burned alive and another 2,536 between • ,U7'1515. By 1524 over twenty thousand “heretics” had been pun- zL ed’ and a thousand of them had been burned at the stake in one city riana Seville).119 After documenting this bloody, Satanic terror, Philip c aff says blandly that we should not rejoice that Spain ceased to be

a power after this treatment of people, nor should we rejoice because Protestants have gained the ascendancy in world affairs; rather we are to have a “sympathetic consideration” for Spain, and it should call forth “no spirit of denunciation,” but rather a hope that Spain’s greatness will be renewed.120

When it came to Biblical truth, Philip Schaff couldn’t find a bowling ball in a bathtub.

Philip had just called Bible believing dissenters “heretical sects’’ andhaddenownredHincmarofRheims(chapter 13, note79)asarascal.

Now, this constant failure to Biblically interpret history, character, actions, doctrines, teachings, and the fruits of those involved (Matt. 7:20) comes from two sources: ignorance and cowardice. These writers, under the pretence of being OBJECTIVE and “neutral,”121 refuse to draw judgment (John 18:39) where it is required (see 1 Cor. 6:2-3). Having abandoned the final, infallible authority for making value judg­ments (Isa. 8:20), they have only “relative truths,” “relative opinions,” “trustworthy translations,” “reliable versions,” and “relative prefer­ences” to deal with; with these it is impossible to draw judgment where their social standing or income is threatened. When these two things are threatened, SELF will arise to defend SELF and in so doing will abandon any standard of judgment (or accept any standard) that is expe­dient to SELF-preservation.

In the twentieth century who was the ‘ ‘greatest’' man, Jack Kennedy or Billy Sunday? Now, there is a test that will finish off a Christian who believes in relative standards.122

You see, the adjective “greatest” is where the fur hits the fan. It is a relative term (how “GREAT” is “great”?) if one rejects 2 Kings 4:8; Acts 10:34; 1 Kings 10:23; Genesis49:8; and Genesis 22:16. When we try to look for the “greatest man” in church history, we keep running into Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Charles the Great. Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, and so forth, with no reference to any fixed standard for “great” found anywhere in either Testament. Who was the greatest man in the eighteenth century, George Washington or John Wesley? How about the nineteenth century? Who was the greatest man in that century: Napoleon or Charles G. Finney? Beethoven or George Mueller?

Now, if these comparisons do not emphasize the point, let us put it this way: which men were the most Biblical? That is, which men came the closest to achieving “greatness’ ’ according to what Godrevea e about “greatness" in His Book? Was Leo “the GREAT’ greater than Arnold of Brescia ? Schaff and Latourette don’t say. Was Charlen®

greater than Peter of Bruys? Hamack and Mosheim don’t say. Was Xavier greater than Zinzendorf? Fisher and Newman don’t say. Was Menno Simon greater than King Henry VIII? Dollinger and D’Aubigne have no comment. Who was greater, Bob Jones, Sr., or his son? Who was greater, Dr. M.R. DeHaan or his son? Jack Hyles or his son? Charles Fuller or his son?

There is an easy way to avoid answering these questions like a Bible believing Christian should answer them—it has never taken intelligence or scholarship to duck issues. When faced with Christ or Barabbas, Pilate tried four different ways to get around acting on a “value judgment” (compromise, cowardice, carelessness, and cleverness) that he had already made. Knowing that Barabbas was guilty (Matt. 27:16), and knowing that Christ was innocent (John 19:4), Pilate got around any definitive judgment by relativity. When Pilate spoke (not “asked”) his famous words, “WHAT IS TRUTH” for every apostate Fundamentalist and Conservative in America, every Papist in Europe and South America, every Communist in Asia and Russia, and every agnostic, atheist, and anarchist who ever lived anywhere, he could not stand by the judgment he knew was right. You see, “truth” had to be on a shifting pedestal if an issue came up which involved his own social standing, income, position, or authority. Pilate, therefore, had no absolute standard of truth by which to judge ANY truths (John 18:38; 19:14), so he had to wash his hands of the whole mess. This he did (Matt. 27:24), like Schaff, Dollinger, Fisher, et al.

Returning to the value judgment “play-offs,” what can be learned from church history (that a man could learn) if he can’t even decide who is Biblical and who is not? If God the Holy Spirit suddenly appeared on the scene and drew judgment, would He say that Pope John XXIII was a better Christian than Savonarola? Would He say (in line with what He already WROTE and preserved) that Luther was a better Chris­tian than Philip the Fair of France? Would God the Holy Spirit have any absolute standards by which to judge a man? Would He be afraid to write them down ? Did you ever read them? Do you ever use them?

In the minds of Schaff, Latourette, Durant, Wells, and others, there is no standard for deciding these matters; so, the following stratagems re resorted to, to avoid getting involved and committing oneself to a Christian conclusion:

1- You cannot compare the two men because they were “great” •n different ways.

You cannot compare the two men because they lived and worked Iferent times in history (i.e., the Bible can’t cover all periods of history).

3. You cannot compare the two men because each was great in his own field (i.e., the Bible doesn’t apply to certain fields).

4. Therefore, you cannot judge greatness (Matt. 7:1)—eventhough you continue to write about certain characters as4 ‘THE GREAT’ ’—and further, you cannot really tell what is TRUTH and what is error123 because this would reveal a subjective prejudice.

This is the approach of Westcott and Hort (1884) to the Greek New Testament,124 and this is the approach of Panosian (Bob Jones Univer­sity), Robert Sumner (The Biblical Evangelist), Curtis Hutson (The Sword of the Lord, and FredAfman (Tennessee Temple Schools) to the authority of the King James Bible: it is also the approach of the faculty members at Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, New York City College, and the University of Chicago.

If John the Baptist was “great” in the sight of the Lord, was he great in the sight of church historians? Can you find more material on John the Baptist than you can find on Abraham Lincoln or Charlemagne? Why is this? Isn’t it because Charlie and Abe were worldly heroes who lived in the world, of the world, by the world, and for the world in the realm of ANTI-church history; and, therefore, the materials on them (see Exodus 15 and comments in that commentary) are abundant? It cannot be that there was more information available on anyone in Charlemagne’s day than in John’s day, for there is enough information on worldlings before John’s time to fill a library (Socrates, Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, et al.). Was Paul more spiritual than Pope Urban II and Pope Gregory I? They why didn’t the church historians compare their lives with his? Simple: it would spoil the “his­tory.” Alongside Paul, Urban II and Gregory “the Great” would look like two hippies that fell off the back end of a dump truck.125

If the great woman of Shunem (2 Kings 4:8) was “great,” why was she great? Wasn’t it because she didn’t panic at the death of her son, and because she held God to His word through a prophet of God (2 Kings 4:12-28)? How do you make a pope or a bishop—Thomas a Becket, for instance—“great” in church history when hedidn't believei a word of God that he had and didn’t know one tenth of what a Christian should know about4 ‘greatness” after reading that word of God. Bee ket. Urban, and Gregory all had copies of the Bible available any time they wanted to read them. Why all the squeamishness when listing the out> standing characters and the “leaders” and “shepherds” in church history, j

Simple: Schaff, Fisher, Renan, Flacius, Howson, Hamack, an^.i others never believed for five minutes that there was any absolute sta ■ ard for judging any man’s work; they judged every man s wor^ V

reputation and his “times. ” If they had lived in the days of Barabbas and Christ and had been called upon to judge between them, they would have had to say that although Barabbas was a murderer (like Pope Inno­cent III), guilty of sedition (like Boniface VIII), and a thief (like any pope who steals God’s title for Himself—John 17:11), he was, in his own way, a ‘ ‘product of the times, ’ ’ with ‘ ‘obvious handicaps and disad­vantages,” and we should not be too ‘‘harsh in our judgment of his Christianity” which ‘‘in those days,” etc., etc. Thieves of a feather steal together (Matt. 13:32). The reason why the only thing men learn from history is that men never learn from history is because no major historian believed there was anything you could learn for certain to start with. If you read forty major historians (Sozomen, D’Aubigne, Migne, Eusebius, LaGarde, Newman, Froom, Drummond, Fisher, Latourette, H.G. Wells, Durant, Spengler, Mezeray, Socrates, Josephus, Vedder, Van Loon, Schaff, Churchill, Mosheim, Lea, et al.), you would come out with: some good, some bad, look up, the future is bright, but there are clouds on the horizon, we need to get together, we’ll muddle through some way because we always have, let’s don’t fuss and argue: let’s UNITE.126

If there is one thing that church history does not teach, that is it. If there is one thing the Bible doesn’t teach, that is it. If there is any conclusion more false than that conclusion, it hasn’t been put in print unless the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers wrote it.

The failure of the church historians to judge church history by the constitution of the church (the Holy Bible) and to judge by it instead of by Karl Marx’s philosophy (“unite!”) or Darwin’s philosophy nulli­fies the work before it is over and relegates it to fiction by the time it is finished. Refusal to place the Bible down as the yardstick for church history produces ANTI-church history—the history of the political and ecumenical efforts of Roman Catholicism and apostate Protestantism to rule the world. There isn’t any question about the “greatness” of, say, Johnny Carson compared with, say, Glenn Schunk; the Bible never leaves anyone in doubt about what “greatness” is in God’s sight. The people who give fallen nature the benefit of a doubt and the motives of depraved sinners the benefit of a doubt never hesitate to spit in the face of God Almighty every time He draws a value judgment in these matters (Eph. 2:M; Matt. 23:33; John 8:40; Isa. 64:6). They will not even draw a clear line between the saved and the lost (Eph. 2:1-4), let one between professing Christians who pay no more attention to the word of God than Buddha or Confucius and Christians who stand by ,,e °(>°k- Cowardice is their motive, and ignorance of the Bible is their alibi fop not tatino itc z* '

Where these men venture opinions about “greatness,” they are to be ignored, for their opinions are not based on Biblical truth at all; they are based on humanistic liberalism and the fear of man.

When the Post-millennial and A-millennial historian is asked (or feels called upon) to comment on such matters, he finds himself in a bind. The old alibi of “those were dark times” or “ignorance of true Christianity, ’ ’ etc., will no longer fill the bill in absolving the criminals; other tactics must be resorted to.

Now, the standard way to obliterate the truth, or cover it up, prac­ticed by all educated people (lawyers, scholars, teachers, scientists, soci­ologists, doctors, and writers) is to raise up more than one conflicting authority so that neither authority can posit a clear-cut judgment: confuse the issue. If the final authority is there (as in the case of a judge in a court of law), the issues are to be muddled and misrepresented127 with extraneous details until it appears to the final authority (the judge, for example) that no clear-cut decision can be arrived at. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was constructed along these lines: by the use of hypothetical situations, imaginary problems, and conflicting “findings,” a decision was arrived at which declared, in effect, that there are no absolute stan­dards for ANYTHING—not even time, motion, and space. In the moral realm this means anarchy, with all actions based on opinions or ‘ ‘prefer­ences.”128 When Durant and Latourette are called upon to pass judg­ment on what they have just documented, all that either of them could say would be that “it was one of the blacker pages in the history of many who were really trying to edify and help out,” etc. The most that either could say is that ‘ ‘certainly these actions could not be condoned or justified in the name of the lowly Nazarene, who taught,” etc. But this is not a faithful record of the history or the system or the times or the movements or the “teachings of the lowly Nazarene.”

The hideous and appalling/acts, written in the red letters of human blood, are that the dirty reprobates who ordered the killings we have been documenting (and many times helped carry them out) professed to belong to the Bride of Jesus Christ and to be members of the only one, true church that Jesus ever founded; and to this day they believe and profess exactly the same thing. How is anyone to believe that any of them would act any differently if the “times” occurred again that occurred back then? There is nothing about the Spanish Inquisition that was “the spirit of the times." The “spirit of the Inquisition is t e spirit of the Roman Catholic church and the Roman Catholic empire when they were unfettered, unshackled, and able to operate wii:o restraint to carry out their own designs.129 It is the Roman Cap1

spirit in the twentieth century, as in any other century.130 That “spirit” is located in Ephesians 2:1 -2 and John 8:40 in every Bible on the market, or off the market, and the “times” have nothing to do with it. Schaff and Latourette simply pretend that Satan is no longer involved in church history (see preface). With bibliographies running into two thousand selections of source material, neither man could tell you what God did in the history of the church or what the devil did in the history of the church or even what the CHURCH was. What God did by the Holy Spirit, these characters call ‘ ‘the Christian impulse” or ‘ ‘heretical sects” or “schismatic groups” or “the Christian conscience” or “moral awakenings’ ’ or “missionary endeavors, ’ ’ and what Satan accomplished by his spirit (Luke 4:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2) is called ‘ ‘errors, mistakes, non-Christian attitudes or conduct, ” a ‘ ‘persecuting spirit, ” or an ‘ ‘un- Christlike spirit.” Church historians are great compromising humani­tarians when it comes to calling a spade a spade. Actually, there isn’t any question about the work or the activity of the Roman Catholic church in the Dark Ages: with a devil’s Bible and a devil’s plan of salvation and a devil’s ambition to guide her, why would ANYONE think that she was the proper subject of “church” history? What church? With the ‘ ‘Vicar of Christ” at her head—supposedly the visible representative of Godon this earth131—and a claim to infallible guidance (1 Tim. 3:15) under a “Virgin Mother’ ’ and a sinless Saviour (Heb. 4:15) with decrees so perfect that God agreed with all of them (Matt. 16:19), how could such a ‘ ‘church” murder ANY Christian? Or an atheist, for that matter? When was the last time a Bible believing Baptist ever killed an atheist for ANY of his “convictions”?

No, one cannot call the history of Roman Catholicism a history of the church nor the “expansion of Christianity,” nor can one call it “church history” unless one has discarded the New Testament before attempting to write. A “church” guilty of 900,000 bloody murders in less than two hundred years (and over 40,000,000 in fifteen centuries, according to some)132 is certainly not connected with “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15): she is not close enough to the ground where that pillar is planted to see it with a telescope. Such a church” is no more the Bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2) than the NKVD or the Mafia are. _

God junked Spain politically, socially, and economically for her foul and sadistic conduct in dealing with Bible believing Christians and God sancient covenant people, the Jews. She has never been a third-rate world power since the sinking of the Armada, and she has never figured as afifth-rate world power since 1800 A.D. When Torquemada burned

six thousand copies of the Hebrew Old Testament133 at Seville in 1490, he sealed the fate of the overseas empire that was about to rise under Columbus, Magellan, Cortez, Coronado, Ponce de Leon, and Balboa. - Schaff, and many others, simply cannot understand the importance of the Bible as it is related to church history. He would never connect its use or misuse, perversion or disuse, recovery, preaching, or propa­gation with a single major movement in the history of the church before Luther. But when Spain, France, and Italy mounted the vendetta against “heretics,” the Lord mounted a couple of His own vendettas:

-> 1. He split Hellish Mother church right down her seams and put one Antichrist in Avignon, France, and the other in Rome to silence forever the mouths of Catholics liars who claim that Rome was always “ONE holy, apostolic church,” etc.

2. He raised up one heretic in England (Wycliffe) who drove a wedge so deep between London and Rome that the pope never fully recovered St. Paul’s.

3. He sent the Black Death to Europe and quietly wiped out over 5,000,000 people, 90% of whom were members ofHoly Mother church.

We shall talk about these matters in more detail, but first we shall examine the lives of nine great Sardis period “heretics”: Arnold of Brescia, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Girolamo Savonarola, Henry of Lausanne, Leuthard, Tanchelm of Flanders, Berthold of Rumania, Meister Eckhart.

Arnold of Brescia (1110-1155)

Arnold came from north Italy (Lombardy), in the heart of Waldensian, Paulician, and “New Manichaean” territory.134 He was condemned as a schismatic at the Synod ofLateran (1139) and again at a Council of Sens (1140). He was expelled from Italy and then expelled from France; from there he went into Bohemia into the area that had been evangelized by the missionaries from Iona.135 The Bulgarians, Arian “Goths, and Paulicians were there to meet him. Arnold got permission to come back to Rome, where he incited a riot136 and was banished again as a "here­tic.” Pope Adrian IV finally got Frederick I to have Arnold arrested. He was hanged, and after his death his body was burned and his ashes were thrown into the Tiber River.

Now, why would a “Vicar of Christ” treat one of his church mem bers in this fashion? It was quite simple: Arnold has "unsound not'°^j regarding the sacrament of the altar [chapter 13, notes 83-93] andI f fl baptism of CHILDREN.”'31 St. Bernard referred to Arnold’s Biblica convictions as “poison.”138 Baronius calls him “the father of p®1 1 .

heresies.”139 Arnold’s ‘‘political heresy” was crystal clear; he thought that the church had no business being lined up with any government of a secular nature and that no clergyman should have any state or politi­cal entanglements. That is, Arnold was a Baptist in his position on water baptism and separation of church and state, and he was the forerunner (by over five hundred years) of Roger Williams. Separation of church and state, of course, is ‘‘heresy,” according to all modern popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II), and all American citizens are heretics if they believe in it. At least, that is the documented evidence presented by the Catholic church in regards to the matter.140 Since he believed exactly what the Waldenses and Albigenses believed about infant bap­tism and the “Eucharist,” there was only one thing that could be done to him: he had to be killed.

John Wycliffe (1320-1384)

Wycliffe (sometimes Wyclif) was called ' ‘the Morning Star of the Reformation. ” He was born of Saxon blood in England. John became chaplain to the king in 1366 and was granted a Doctor of Theology in 1374. He soon became outspoken in his condemnation of Roman Catholicism and was summoned before the Bishop of London at St. Paul’s for a tribunal. The pope condemned all of Wycliffe’s writings at this time, and with them went a ban on the first Bible in the English language. Wycliffe had translated the Bible from Latin to English, and although he was reputed to have used only Jerome’s Vulgate, a man named John Purvey'41 had to do a little “revising” to bring Wycliffe’s translation back into line with Jerome’s New ASV. Wycliffe evidently had Old Latin Bibles and some Old Latin manuscripts to work with which disagreed with Jerome in some places.142 While alive, Wycliffe was protected by powerful nobles in England and by the common people, who “heard him gladly.”

John enlisted from the graduates at Oxford a body of ‘ ‘poor priests ’ ’ to preach the Bible all over England. They became known as “Lollards,” and although hard to trace its source, it is interesting to note that the Poor Men of Lyons” (Lionists in France) who were called ‘ ‘Humilitai and * ‘Fratricelli ’ ’ were street preaching men who voluntarily embraced poverty (see notes 74 and 83), as did the Lollards. The conclusion offered by D.B. Ray143 that a Waldensian pastor from the Piedmont named Walter Lollard was the source for their name is as sound as any. Wycliffe died in 1384 while attending church. His writings were rigidly suppressed, and in 1415 the Council of Constance ordered his books to be burned. ~^ter, his remains were dug up out of the grave and burned with them;

is had been decreed at the Lateran Council of 1413

John Huss was accused of being a “Wycliffite.”

By now, no one needs to guess why the dead corpse of Wycliffe received such brutal treatment. Certainly it wasn’t because Wycliffe was an “Arian” or had “Manichaean” tendencies; these lying accusa­tions might have gotten a Catholic butcher through 300-1000 A. D., but now other names had to be invented to justify killing off the opposition. No, the reason why Wycliffe’s body was exhumed and burnt was because he—as the Arians, Manichaeans, Donatists, Paulicians, Paterines, Vaudois, Bulgarians, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Cathari—taught that the pope was the ANTICHRIST,144 that his worldly prelates were ser­vants of the devil, and that no church needed hiim. Further, Wycliffe did noLacceptdhe_African black magic of Radbertus’s “transubstantia- tionlZ (see chapter 13, notes 83-93).

Wycliffe, as all of the Antiochan Christians, was a Bible literalist who believed the Bible was the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith and practice; it was the ‘ ‘WHOLE TRUTH ’ ’ which every Chris­tian (not just church leaders) should study. Whatever is in accord with the Bible is true; whatever disagrees with it is false.145 By the standards of Wheaton College, Dallas Theological Seminary, Maranatha Bible Institute, and Tennessee Temple Schools, Wycliffe was a “BIBLIO­LATER,” for he thought that every syllable of the New Testament was true and nothing was to be believed that was not founded upon the Book.146 Wycliffe charged the Roman Catholics with heresy in denying the laity the privilege of having the Bible in their own language. He also rejected infant baptism (see Arnold, above), Mariolatry, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the rosary, the worship of relics, the mass, and the Apocrypha: he was a Bible believing Baptist, and surely you couldn’t find a worse heretic than that! Pope John Paul II (1979) and Ted Kennedy (1980) would both have to call him a heretic by the dogmatic decrees of their church, to which they profess to subscribe.

Nicolas Hereford translated the Apocryphal books, which were stuck into Wycliffe’s translation to make it appear that Wycliffe had only used the official Roman Catholic Bible from North Africa (see chapter 5). John Purvey revised the work later147 to bring it closer to Jerome, but Purvey (though a Lollard) recanted on his beliefs in 1400 A.D. after being imprisoned, and when he swore to Mary that he would be a good boy, he was promoted to the vicarage of Hythe by the Catholic archbishop.148 Of John Wycliffe and his English Bible the archbishop (Arundel) had said: “that pestilent wretch of damnable memory... ,ore runner of and disciple of Antichrist,” etc.149

The Lollards (Wycliffe’s street preachers) filled England and EuropJ ' ' ' ’ “ • ” a numh?r of them were burne

William Sawtre in 1401, John Badly, Richard Tunning, John Claydon, William Taylor (a priest), William White, Richard Hovden, Richard Wyche, Thomas Bangley (a priest), and Sir John Oldcastle. The first woman to be burned at the stake in England was a Lollard (Joane Broughton, burned at Smithfield, 1494), and her daughter was burned at the stake with her. In 1511, John Brewster and William Sweeting were burned alive at Smithfield, and James Resby was burned at Perth, Scotland, in 1407. Hellish Mother church was busily engaged in “the expansion of Christianity,” to cite the church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette.

John Huss of Bohemia (1369-1415)

Huss was born of peasant stock in Hosinetz, Bohemia. He became a lecturer in theology at the University of Prague (1398) and was ordained to the priesthood in 1401. He translated the writings of John Wycliffe into his native tongue and was promptly branded as a heretic by Hellish Mother church. His followers were called “Hussites” (see chapter 10, notes 39-40), and at one time nearly the whole nation (Czechoslovakia) followed him. Huss was excommunicated by the pope, but he continued to preach and write. In 1414 he was summoned before the Council of Constance. Though promised safe conduct there and back by the emperor and by the pope (Sigismund and Pope John XXIII), he was arrested, thrown in prison, hastily tried, and then burned at the stake (1415). The homicidal Catholic cutthroats who executed him could not plead that he was an Arian, a Bogomile, or a Paterine, nor could they pin the damning title of Albigensian or Manichaean on him (chapter 12, notes 96-105), although it is certain that he got his slant on Biblical truth from those groups while in Bohemia; Bohemia was one of the main headquarters of the Waldenses.150 Huss’s “heresy” wac that he ejected IhfiJlhskmagicof the African “mass” (see chapter 12). and he believed ULpreaching anywfiere,.not just in cathedrals and church buildings; he also denied the infallibility of the pope and went so far as to preach jhat the one “true, holy, apostolic church” could exist without cardinals, popes, or archbishops. There.seemed to be no end of his ‘ ‘blasphemies”: he even thought the church was built on Jesus Christ (the Rock, Deut. 32:4; 1 Peter 2:8) instead of Peter (Satan, Matt. 16:23). Thus, John Huss set himself clearly against the whole ultramontane theory of the church and its head.

Hellish Mother church did the only thing with John that a “HOLY, apostolic church” would do if it was truly “following in the steps of cssed Simon Peter and Blessed John the Baptist”: they burned him

at the stake. The pope’s alibi for lying to John Huss about giving him safe conduct to and from the council was amazingly simple: no one had to keep his word to a “heretic.”151 (That is, anyone who didn’t believe what a pope believed.) This “mental reservation” used by the Jesuits so effectively later,152 when they plotted to murder Abraham Lincoln, was brutally simple in practical application. It meant that any good Catholic could lie under oath, in or out of court, anytime he felt like it, if it brought “glory” (unity and power) to the Catholic church. This standard of moral conduct is just as much a part of orthodox doctrine for an orthodox Catholic in America in 1980 as it was in 1450.153

Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498)

Savonarola was an Italian reformer born in Ferrara, Italy. He left home to enter a Dominican monastery in 1474; there he studied the Bible and the works of Augustine. Being raised on these two conflicting authorities, Savonarola never did attain to the evangelistic and Biblical level of his contemporaries (Waldenses, Lollards, Hussites, etc.); how­ever, he became a great preacher of righteousness (as Chrysostom) and spoke out boldly against the evils of Roman Catholic priests and bishops until he had Italy in an uproar. The city of Florence (northern Italy, the home of the Paterines, Waldenses, and Fratricelli) assumed the pro­portions of Calvin’s Geneva (chapter 16) under this preaching, and in a vain attempt to shut him up, Pope Alexander VI offered him a cardinal’s hat (the red hat). Savonarola replied that he would take a “red hat” all right, one made out of blood.154 During the Sardis period (“the red ones”) Savonarola had no delusions about the proper place for a Bible preaching Christian who was preaching against the sins of Rome.

Savonarola is exactly the man to notice at this time in history for his martyrdom settles once and for all the issue about “why” Catholics consistently slaughtered Christians for fifteen centuries; it also clearly shows the basic, fundamental nature of the Fascist hierarchy which rules that church.

You see, Savonarola, unlike Wycliffe and Huss, believed in all seven Catholic sacraments and was a devout Roman Catholic until the day of his death. Savonarola was not like Arnold of Brescia; to the contrary, he was as orthodox as Augustine and Athanasius. However, he made three terrible mistakes: ,

In the first place, he sympathized with the Bohemian Brethren, who were the descendants of the Bulgarians and Paulicians ’

69). Bohemia has been called “the cradle of the Reformation, aI~l these Bible believing people had just experienced a sudden swelling 1

their ranks at the time of Zizka (1420), a Bohemian soldier, and a king whose followers were known as “Taborites.” There is no doubt about the Taborites’ theology: they rejected infant baptism and didn’t accept one single teaching by any church father where it conflicted with scripture —which they HAD.157 Fifty years before Wycliffe’s Bible was printed there were four editions of the Bohemian Bible in use in Bohemia. In 1498 the Bohemian Brethren published their own Bible.

In the second place, when it came to religious liberty and love for the Bible, Savonarola would have to be called a “heretic,” for no pope loved either.15*

In the third place, Savonarola said that Pope Boniface VIII (the author of the bull Unum Sanctum) was a wicked man who began his reign like a fox and ended it like a dog.159 This blew out several fuse boxes at one time. But Savonarola went on and added that if God’s pres­ence left a pope, that pope was nothing but a “broken tool.”160 Upon this, the “Vicar of Christ” did the only thing with Savonarola that a good, godly, humble, Christian man would do: he had the preacher tortured for two months and then burned him at the stake.

When Savonarola was tied to the stake, the pope’s prelate said to him: “I separate thee from the church militant and the church trium­phant" just like he thought he could do it! To which the incorrigible evangelist replied, “Not from the church triumphant; that is not thine to do.”161 His last words were “Jesus, Jesus.” To make sure that no sympathetic bystanders might mistake his death for the death of a Chris­tian martyr (and be tempted to preserve his bones as “relics”), Savonarola’s corpse was burned to ashes, and the ashes were thrown into the Arno River.

Luther said later that it was God who “canonized” Savonarola— i.e., made a saint out of him. The moral quality of the Roman Catholic church’s spirituality is not hard to ascertain when one notes that they canonized the head of the Inquisition (Dominic) but would not canonize Savonarola.

While on the subject of canonized saints, the case of Joan of Arc is interesting. Jeanne D’Arc (1412-1431) was bom in Lorraine. She began to hear celestial voices when she was thirteen years old. In 1429, when the English were about to capture Orleans during the Hundred Years War, she heard voices telling her to come to the aid of her country. Since Rome will always take to “any old port in a storm” to maintain er unity and power, a board of priests examined Joan’s theology and ound that slf vas “Biblical” and “apostolic” and therefore able to ead troops, although King Charles VII of France considered her to be

insane.162 She was captured by the English later (or rather, captured by her own people, French Catholics, and sold to English Catholics). Since at this time the pope, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, con­trolled the Roman Catholic crown of England and the clergy,163 he did the only thing with her that a “Holy Father’’ would do: he had her burned at the stake as a witch. Twenty-five years after her death the “Holy Father” (Pope Benedict XV) realized that the church had made an infallible boo-boo (twentieth century cliche), so he garnished her sepulcher (Matt. 23:29) and reversed the opinion of the court in regards to Joan’s sorceries and “heresies.”164 An old fox always covers his tracks.

Henry of Lausanne (1090-1145)

Henry, the original pastor of the Henricians, was bom in Italy and for a time was a Benedictine monk at the monastery of Cluny. He was later arrested and imprisoned for preaching on the corruption among the Roman Catholic clergymen. He was released but expelled by his bishop. Henry went to the hotbed of heresy (southern France)165 and joined in the street preaching crusades of the followers of Peter of Bruys.166 The pope then sent high church officials into southern France to “stamp out the Henrician heresy,” and Henry was again arrested and thrown into the slammer; this time he was condemned to life impris­onment, and he died in jail.167 His followers were absorbed by the Waldenses. Both Peter of Bruys and Henry had ridiculed water baptism, the mass, and the use of images.168 Peter (1080-1126) claimed that church buildings should not be built, that the cross was not deserving of worship, and that prayers for the dead were useless.169

Since Peter of Bruys was obviously a terrible “heretic,” the pope did the only thing with Peter that a good, sincere, godly, pious, “Holy” father would do: he had Peter burned at the stake.170

Leuthard and Tanchelm of Flanders

These two gentlemen appear preaching on the streets all over Europe. They are “dark horses” as far as Newman, Schaff, and La- tourette are concerned. Leuthard was a Catharist, as Henry of Lausanne. Tanchelm preached in Flanders and denounced the vices of the clergy. He declared to the people that the sacraments administered by the corrupt priests of the Catholic church were valueless172—without perhaps know ing that this was the original position ofNovatus and the Novations (see chapter 4,5). His preaching was followed by a statement at the Cotinci of Toulouse (1119) that heretics who refused to take the sacraments v/e

<- thr-v dwelt. I

Tanchelm was a “radical” according to Norbett, but according to Dargan, “rare and persuasive gifts accompanied his preaching.”174 LaGarde says that the common people (Mark 12:37) had a respect for Tanchelm and his preaching that “bordered on idolatry.”175 Since the leaders of the Catholic church had been immersed in idolatry for eight centuries, they obviously could not stand for any competition. They did the only thing with Tanchelm that the “elect of God” (see note 23) could do: they had a Catholic priest assassinate him.176

Bruno of Segni (1049) was a noted Cathari. He was a counselor to several popes, and in the shadow of the Vatican he propagated the ancient heresy of Pre-millennialism (Chiliasm) over which Origen, Clem­ent, Eusebius, and Augustine had fought so bitterly all of their lives (chapter 7, notes 33-45). This was the first time the heresy appeared in the headquarters of a pope since the Council of Nicaea.

Robert Grosseteste (1175) also denounced the pope as the Antichrist. He preached in the open against papal abuses, and he prevented the pope from collecting the tithe of the clergy during the reign of Henry III.177

Gerald of York (1108) bitterly contended against Anselm and the “schoolmen,” and he insisted on the priesthood of the laity and no pri­macy of any Bishop of Rome.178

Eon de L ’Etoile and Arnold of Brescia followed in the wake of the Catharists, the former pillaging monasteries as he went.179

The noise became louder: the pressure rose in the cooker. Popular preachers spoke from the Bible and relied upon it solely: among them were Bernard of Thiron, Robert of Abrisse, and Vitalis of Savigny.180 The Cathari overflowed Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France, and the Balkans.

Arnold of Villanova was jailed for predicting the coming of the Anti­christ to Paris (about 1300).181 He only missed the date by about nine years (see chapter 15) and had the right country (France) but the wrong city (Avignon).

Joachim of Floris is said to have been responsible for a schism in the Franciscans and the withdrawal of the more spiritual ones from that group. Joachim called Rome “Babylon” (Rev. 17) and identified the P°pe as the Antichrist.182 He was a Chiliast like all of the early church athers except those who followed the leadership of Origen and Clement of Alexandria.

Earnest and aggressive preachers wr 3 spreading all over Italy and |^thern France. And while the scholastic^ were trying to make up their

Aether they were Nominalists or Realists and were fishing around

in the junkyards of Neo-Platonism, Aristotelianism, and dialectics, the word of God continued to be preached.

When Roger Bacon (1219-1294) came out with accusations that the Roman Catholics had corrupted the New Testament text183 and emphasized the disregard they had for the Bible as a source of knowl­edge, he was imprisoned in a monastery.184

Of the tenderfeet (see chapter 11) who stayed within the pale of Unholy Mother church (Gerson, Catherine of Siena, Ferrer, Nicolas of Cusa, et al.), St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) has as much claim as any to being harmless while at the same time contributing something to Biblical Christianity. Small, prodigious, evangelistic movements fol­lowed Francis wherever he went, according to LaGarde.185 Francis preached from door to door, sleeping in haylofts, witnessing in leper hospitals, and preaching on hillsides. He made tours through Italy, Syria, and Egypt, travelling barefoot many days at a time. Where he obediently followed the precepts he had borrowed from the Waldensian and Lyonist preachers, he did a certain amount of good, and of course, where he deviated from them (in order to stay out of jail), he helped spread the typical Romanist line. You see, it was the Albigenses, Lyonists, and Waldensian preachers who were “traveling evangelists,” living from hand to mouth. St. Francis imitated them. In his favor it may be said that he was contemptuously dismissed by the papal legates for trying to convert Mohammedans. Contempt from the pope’s Gestapo always indicates a man is on the right track.

Raymond Lully (1236-1315), who had a burden for the Moham­medans, was also up against the same group of Pharisees. After two trips to North Africa on his own he was stoned to death for preaching on the street. Lully (sometimes Lull) was constantly in disfavor with the popes.186

Franciscans went to Peking and Morocco, and they even accom­panied Columbus on his second journey; they were also active in the region of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River before 1600. What little Biblical knowledge the Franciscans had and what little Biblical evangelism they engaged in they learned from heretics.187 Within a few months following the death of Francis, as in the case of St. Pat, the majority of his teachings were revised and brought in line with Catholic heresy; they were perverted by the schoolmen and then enforced in the monasteries by the pope’s Gestapo.188 Pope Gregory IX canonized Francis in 1229, but in less than forty years Pope Alexander began to destroy his work while reverencing him as a saint (see Patrick, Coluni a, et al.). William of Ockham was the only schoolman who held to e

Hildegard (1148) was a Catholic mystic and a pro-Catharist. She lamented the low condition of the clergy and told her hearers to look to Jesus Christ for salvation instead of the Catholic priests.190

Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg (1200-1246), said that the papacy was the “little horn’’ of Daniel 8:9-13. Eberhard was the first man to show how the papacy developed from pagan Rome.191 The arch­bishop, of course, was seated dead center in the heart of “the hotbed of heresy”—the region around Bohemia and Bavaria that had been sat­urated with Bible believing witnesses from 300-800 A.D.

Berthold of Rumania (1210-1272)

Berthold of Ratisbon (Berthold Von Regensburg) was an itinerant Franciscan evangelist. He had larger crowds coming to hear him preach than those who heard Whitefield or Moody in the eighteenth and nine­teenth centuries (sometimes as many as sixty thousand). Berthold exalted Christ as the only Saviour from an everlasting hell; he scorned the cheats, the fakirs, the dicers and dancers, the lazy, and the gluttonous. Dargan describes his preaching as “fresh...vivid...sometimes coarse.”192 He spoke three languages (German, Slavic, and Latin), and although he was not a real “heretic” or “dissenter” in the eyes of the hierarchy—that is, he was not Biblical enough to upset the apostates—he still preached against indulgences and told his audience that praying to the saints and trying to get help from Mary was wasted time.193

Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444) preached, and Dargan says that he used a little “sensationalism” in his preaching194 because he illustrated his sermons with chalk talks.

John Ruysbroeck preached in the Netherlands. Jean Charlier and John Veghe preached the gospel in Paris.193 Groot was a traveling evangelist.

During this period (1200-1500) the Waldenses were all over the Continent, coming mainly from southeastern Germany (Moravia, Bohemia, and Bavaria). They were required to memorize two Gospels and to be able to preach in two languages before they were ordained.196 The might of popedom could not stop them. They swarmed all over Italy, Austria, and the Piedmont into France, where later they were called Huguenots. Europe became a powder keg, and through no fault of scholarship, politics, bulls, councils, or the “R't >ssance.” The Waldenses were “lay evangelists,” and they distributed scriptures to the people as they went. Their work was so potent that national tongues finally displaced Latin as the languages of the pulpits.197 Despite all e scholastics could do, despite all of the “secondary separation” behind

the barbed wire fences of the “Christian universities,” and despite ail of the religious chicanery of Rome, the Bible continued to be preached throughout the land; it determined to a large extent the future destiny of the Roman church.

Following the destruction of St. Francis’s work came historical land­marks: the Black Death (1340-1355) and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (chapter 15, notes 57-58), which witnessed two popes calling each other “Antichrist.”198 “Antichrist” was not a theme of Scholastic theology; it was not connected with the revival of arts and learning; it was not connected with the Crusades; it was not connected with “reli­able translations” recommended by “godly monks.” Antichrist was the theme of the STREET PREACHING, Bible believing evangelists who preached from the book of Revelation. You see, the Waldenses had taught from the start that all sinners who obeyed the Roman church were DAMNED.199 The popes were evidently not the only ones who had ideas about who was “anathema” and who wasn’t.

The real issue, then, in the Dark Ages became clearer by the minute after the return of the crusaders. It was connected with the Bible and street preaching; it had nothing to do with the Renaissance, the merchants’ “guilds,” nationalism, or Scholasticism. It was not even connected with Christology or “Manichaeanism.” The real issue was related to the commandments of God given in an authoritative Book: the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That authoritative Book—the absolute and final authority—identified the Roman Catholic church as a PROSTITUTE (Rev. 17).

Meister Eckhart (1260-1327)

Eckhart was a member of that class of introspective saints we call “mystics,” one who majors in the inner, devotional life of the believer (Watchman Nee, Ruth Paxton, Andrew Murray, Keswick Convention, et al.). He was the earliest theologian to write in German. He was accused of heresy by Henry of Vimeburg, the Archbishop of Cologne, in 1325. In a bull dated March 17, 1329, Pope John XXII announced that/i/te^ of Eckhart’s teachings were heretical and eleven had at least the 'savor of heresy.”200 (By now the reader should have mastered thoroughly the doctrine of “heresy” when identified as such by any Roman Catholic. Heresy, to a Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible.) Eckhart s “heresy” was that he did not dwell on the sacraments and the authority of the church and that he taught that good works could sanctify nothing, holy living comes from holy being, and righteous acts do not make on righteous (Rom. 3-10).201 Such a teaching set Eckhart (also Ekha

against the entire sacramental system of the church. According to the Council of Trent later (1545-1546), Eckhart was cursed of God. You see, the form and content of Eckhart’s teaching had a tendency to turn people from the authority of the Catholic priesthood and the ritual legal­ism of the sacraments to the Holy Spirit HIMSELF: hence the charge of “heresy.”

You must understand that while all of these charges were being hurled about, the popes themselves believed they had a piece of Noah’s ark, some drops of sweat that Christ sweat in Gethsemane, a full bottle of Mary’s milk, some earth from a field where God made Adam, Mary’s girdle, straw from the manger, and pieces of a stone where Christ sat when He wept over Jerusalem.202 This was the deluded bunch of idiots who referred to humanists like John Colet, Ulrich Von Hutten, Hegius, Wimpheling, Trithemius, Huisman, and Sir Thomas More as “heretics. ” There are “heretics,” and then there are heretics.

The constant eruption of heretics between 1200 and 1500 A.D. who needed to be burned at the stake should have been a warning to any church historian that there was a great movement going on underground during this period that was not connected with anti-church history (the history of the Roman Catholic church). What was going on was the result of the preaching of Cathari and Waldenses, Albigenses and Bohe­mian Brethren, who were not only calling the pope Antichrist (see below) but were distributing Bibles and tracts with scriptural portions on them all over the empire. No pope could sit easily on his Roman throne any more; there was too much “light.”

Before 1520 no less than 199 printed editions of Gutenberg’s Bible were in circulation: 156 in Latin, 17 in German, 11 in Italian, 2 in Bohe­mian, and 1 in Russian. Down to the fifteenth century, 203 manuscripts can be found, which include ten complete New and Old I .aments in German.203 There was a complete French version coming out of the Albigensian stronghold in southeast France (Lyons, note 166) by 1477, and Tyndale’s “heretical” version (chapter 16) was on the market at a rate of six thousand copies in a single edition (1525-1526). Sooner or later “adjustments” would have to be made by the popes to cover up their phony authority. Although Tyndale belongs properly to the Phil­adelphia church period of history (1500-1900; Rev. 3:8), it is interesting to note that he suffers exactly the same fate at the hands of the Papists t at Savonarola and John Huss suffered earlier: he was burned at the stake.

The first English monarch who regularly burned “heretics” at the stake was Henry IV(1399). In 1401 he had immoral laws passed making

capital punishment the sentence for anyone disagreeing with the Roman Catholic pope in ANY matter. English sheriffs were forced to take an oath that they would harass and persecute every Bible believer in England.204 The pope at this time dictated English law, and the Catholic Archbishop Chickeley said openly (1416) that killing heretics ought to be “the principle CARE of the church,” not the spiritual conversion of anyone.

When John Badly, a Lollard, was brought before Archbishop Arundel (March 1, 1409), he said that if every wafer in the sacraments was Christ’s veritable body, then there would be twenty thousand gods in England. For this sound piece of scriptural logic he was bound and burned at the stake.205

John Florence, accused of heresy, renounced his “Wycliffism” but was still whipped for three Sundays before the congregation of Norwich Cathedral.206

During this terrible period (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries) the English people were nothing but serfs and peons under the control of a demoniac despot at Rome. When a “heretic” was condemned, the church bells would toll, and a priest would seize a lighted candle from the altar and cry out, “Just as this candle is deprived of its light, so let him be deprived of his soul in hell.”207 In the Dark Ages, Roman Catholics had one main job: putting out lights as fast as they were turned on (chapter 10, notes 97-101).

When Henry VIII and his bishops framed the “Six Article Acts” they said simply and as blasphemously as the popes whom they learned from that if any Christian denied that the mass was not a reincarnation of the literal corpse of Jesus Christ, that he should be burned to death.208

To add a touch of the theatrical to their atrocities the Catholics forced Tylesworth’s only daughter to take a brand and set fire to a pile which consumed her own father.209 He was burned at Amersham in 1506. The SS men at Dachau (1940) and the Communists on the Gulag Archipelago (1930-1960) never improved on that.

The only “light” that Roman Catholics kindled in the Dark Ages (that is, those who stayed in fellowship with the “one, unholy, apostate whore”—Rev. 17:1) were the lights that came from bonfires where Bible believers were being assassinated. The Holy Spirit is not speaking face­tiously when He says this female Whore was not only drinking the filth­iness of her own fornication (Rev. 17:4) but was also “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev. 17:6). In the Bible she is not Christ’s bride—that is the private interpretation of Roman Catholics—she is Satan's bride, and she rides

a “beast” who sports the names of BLASPHEMY (Rev. 17:3). Pagan Rome could never compete with papal Rome when it came to slaugh­tering Christians.

From the standpoint of the “expansion of Christianity” we may say of this period that the motive for expansion was world domination; the tools for expansion were blackmail, murder, interdictions, and excommunication (see chapter 13, notes 29-33); the weapons of expan­sion were fire and the sword; and the “missionaries” were the church state officials who were subservient to a foreign government (Rome) instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Only a continental disaster could follow this atrocious treatment of human beings. Outstripping every gang of perverted butchers in the history of slaughter, with the possible exception of the Mongol hordes under Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, the Roman Catholics of 1000-1500 A.D. behaved exactly as any Bible believer would expect them to behave if they ever got into a position of absolute power. All totalitarian systems are corrupt: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If a man can learn nothing from church history but that one, basic truth, he will have his guard up at any conference table where a Communist or a Catholic or a Fascist or a Socialist has met him in “detente” to “help mankind out” and “end man’s inhumanity to man,” etc. All four systems are totalitarian dictatorships or oligarchies.210

There are other famous characters of this time: John Tauler, John Colet, John Reuchlin, and Geiler of Strasbourg; and we shallvMefly examine them later. However, we need to go back again into anti -nurch history and examine the political and cultural climate of the Sardis period. In the very middle of this period there was a split in the Roman Catholic church that was the scandal of the Middle Ages; to understand it one should know something about the Machiavellian power politics which developed in Europe as the popes sought to establish themselves as supreme dictators of the western world. When the pope claimed immu­nity from the laws of God and man,211 he was honored as a “Holy Father” by over twenty million superstitious pagans; when Adolph Hitler asked for unconditional obedience,212 without requiring anyone to call him “holy father,” he was looked upon as a madman.

The kings of Europe were not as dumb as they looked; they knew a competitor when they saw one. All power-mad demagogues do. They recognized in the pope a first-class enemy so powerful that they would do well to “go along with him” as far as they could without antagonizing him. Stalin and Molotov felt the same way about their “friendly” treaty with Ribbentrop and Adolph (1939). Peaceful terms were not negotiated

on the basis of mutual trust or “peaceful coexistence” but rather on the grounds of mutual terror. No pope wanted a king at the head of an army sailing down to Rome and throwing him in the slammer (see chapter 15); conversely, no king wanted an assassin’s arrow or dagger sliding into his thoracic cage (spare ribs) because some pope had prom­ised “remission of sins” to a Catholic criminal willing to commit mur­der. The rise, then, of the European kings in this period posed a threat to a pope who—knowing on which side his bread was buttered—was willing to make any concession to a king as long as the Catholic church was allowed complete freedom to operate in that nation (see John Paul II, 1979, from Communist Poland, and the Moscow Rome Axis, 1978-1990). Selling God and the Bible out for “favors” is the standard operating procedure for a religious whore (Rev. 17:5). Under the lead­ership of demoniac popes, the Roman Catholics sold their birthright (Heb. 12:16) for a mess of pottage, for as John the apostle says, “the world passeth away, and the lusts thereof’ (1 John 2:17). When you love this present world, like most Catholics do, you have to sell heaven out to keep it (2 Tim. 4:10).

The real beginnings of this “button, button, who’s got the button?” operation began with Constantine; it continued under Clovis and accel­erated under Charlemagne. This contest between worldly rulers who were of the world, by the world, and for the world, and to whom the world listened (1 John 4:5), was now about the erupt into a public spec­tacle; it belongs to the realm of anti-church history, since all of the popes, cardinals, archbishops, monks, nuns, and priests have nothing to do with the New Testament church to start with. Because they were all connected with the power play in the “power structure” of the world system, the world listened to them (1 John). The monks and nuns, as we have noted (chapter 11), were those who had fled to the hideouts for Christians who wanted to appear “godly” or “UNWORLDLY while staying in communion with the most depraved, godless, fleshy, worldly system the world has ever seen: Hellish Mother church.
















A.D. 1309—1379


Anti-Church History

“With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his. He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools. He looseth the bonds of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle...He poureth con­tempt upon princes, and weakeneth the strength of the > mighty.” Job 12:16-18, 2f

Henry III, the king of Germany (1039-1056), was the Holy Roman Emperor from 1046-1056. He went to Rome in 1046 and called a council that put an end to three rival “vicars of Christ” (Sylvester III, Benedict IX, and Gregory VI). Since “apostolic succession” from “blessed Simon Peter” could very well go in any direction, depending upon who had the biggest army to back him up, a fourth pope was drummed up out of thin air (Clement II). Henry put Clement II up in the high chair and tucked his bib in; in return for this favor, Clement promptly crowned Henry III (chapter 12, note 68) as “Emperor crowned by God,” etc. Since this “leapfrog” operation was pleasant to all involved, Henry took the next jump and appointed the next four popes.

His successor, Henry IV (1050-1106), was a German king bom in Prussia. Having conquered the Saxons in 1075, he made the mistake of thinking he could appoint his own bishops, abbots, and archbishops: I mean, after all, didn’t Henry III appoint “popes”? But Henry over­stepped himself, for now the District Court Judges in Germany, under the HEW at Rome, had decided that only a foreigner could run Germany: Rome was to appoint the bishops, etc. When the pope threatened Hank with excommunication, Hank called a Council at Worms (1076) and excommunicated Pope Gregory on the grounds of witchcraft, treason, impurity, making a covenant with the devil, etc. (which, in the light of the past and subsequent history of the popes, was probably more truth than fiction).' On the next day Gregory (Hildebrand) excommu­

nicated the Holy Roman Emperor in the name of St. Peter.2 Gregory (alias Hildebrand) piously quoted Matthew 16:18 just like he wanted someone to think he was a Bible believer. Along with taking Henry off of the SS roll, Gregory kicked out all of the German and Italian bishops from the church who had met with Henry at Worms.3

At this time the remembrance of Charlie’s Academy Award winning show in the Super Bowl (chapter 12, note 68) came in handy, for public sentiment turned against the German emperor when all of his subjects remembered that, after all, the one who sets kings on their thrones surely has the power to dethrone them, for he was “God” when he crowned them. This power was obviously Gregory’s because, surely, when the pope crowned Charlie (Christmas, 800 A.D.), all of his church members had claimed that he was “God” (chapter 12, note 69). So Henry’s own subjects decided—without reference to any Biblical authority or Bible text or Bible teaching or Bible truth—that Henry should repent of his sins and submit to the pope. It was decide that he should seek “absolu­tion” in twelve months or else forfeit his crown (1076 A.D.). Well, Henry was simply f-u-u-rious! but there was nothing he could do about it; so, in the winter of 1077, Henry publicly acted in such a way as to encourage all future kings to collapse at the feet of a Fascist dictator in humble submission. Accompanied by his wife and son and one servant, Henry took out across the Alps to Canossa (a city in north Italy, south of Reggio) and declared his willingness to submit to the holy papa if papa would release him from the “interdict” (chapter 13, notes 30-31). Gregory (alias Hildebrand) knew when he had the cat in the bag, so he refused to grant Henry absolution until Henry was willing to confess that all kings had to give their crowns to the pope for distribution as he saw fit.

Henry abased himself to the ground and knocked at the pope’s gate­way for three days, with bare feet and head, shivering in the snow. After three days the inner gate was opened and Hank rushed in to his “benefactor” crying, “Spare me, Holy Father, spare me!” The Holy Father (John 17:11!) absolved the sucker and have him an “apostolic blessing” and a Baalite mass. After some fatherly warnings he let Hank go home.

The result of this disgusting scene was a civil war in Germany and Italy.4 After three years of bloody fighting between Henry and Rudolph (the Duke of Swabia), Gregory (“his holiness,” etc.) magnanimously gave Germany to Rudolph (his armies were on top at that time) and kept Italy for himself.5 When that piece of “good news" got out, thirty German and Italian bishops promptly met at Brixen in the Tyrol (1080)

and kicked Greg off the papal throne again (twenty-seven bishops signed the document).

“The worm [Henry] could turn.”

This time Hank didn’t play hanky-panky. He crossed the Alps with an army instead of one servant (see above) and arrested the old, two-faced trouble maker at Rome and pitched him into the hoosegow (1084). How­ever, doing time in the slammer didn’t teach Gregory anything: the dirty, old hypocrite was just as “godly” and as “pious” as Augustine. He claimed to the end that he was “not afraid of the threats of the wicked and would rather sacrifice his life than consent to EVIL. ”6 Considering what Roman Catholic standards were for good and evil by this time, no thoughtful man would have taken Gregory seriously.

Henry now proceeded to put Wibert on St. Peter’s throne aft* he conquered Rome (June 28, 1083) and let old Gregory hurl anathemas around like popcorn and confetti. After a while Gregory (alias Hilde­brand) saw that “sticks and stones would break Hank’s bones, but names would never hurt him,” so he sent for a Norman chief named Wiscard (Robert Guiscard) to help him. Wiscard came with thirty thousand infan­trymen and six thousand horsemen, among whom were Saracens and Lombards. He liberated the pope all right (May 1084), but Gregory’s tactics backfired on him. Wiscard and his troops pillaged the city of Rome, raped and slaughtered many of the pope’s supporters, as well as his enemies, and then sold several thousand good “Catholics” into slavery.7

But “never say die,” so Gregory (a pope in exile in Salerno) still spit out bans and damns against Henry, who probably went grouse hunt­ing or falconing. After causing the raping, robbery, and murder of hun­dreds of his subjects in Rome, and the death and destruction of thousands of Germans outside of Italy, Gregory (“Hildebrand” in most histories) said, “I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.”8 To which one of his deluded flunkies said, “Nay, in exile thou canst not die who as the Vicar of Christ and His apostles hast re­ceived ALL THE NATIONS for thine inheritance.”9 Thus the God­forsaken rascal had stolen the promise of Psalm 2:8 given to JESUS CHRIST (by God the Father)—to be fulfilled in the Millennium—and applied it to a power-mad, egotistical, mortal sinner. But such are the ways of those deluded fanatics who took Augustine to be a Bible scholar (chapter 10, notes 76-77).

Thomas a Becket and King Henry II of England belong to the papal realm of fairyland “church history.” As a result of the constant friction between church and state (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1969), there

arose a situation in England where either an English king or a Roman dictator had to be obeyed. The story is well-known, being propagated with pious sentiments down through the ages to make people feel deeply disturbed over the murder of one Catholic. However, thousands of mur­dered Christians (see the previous chapter) have never been made much of by the press, radio, television, newspapers, or movies. Thomas a Becket stands out in the prostitute press and theater world as a “great” (chapter 14, notes 120-131) martyr because, after all, he did stand up for Roman policies in Great Britain. You understand, it is a sin to stand up for ENGLISH policies in Ireland (Avro Manhattan, Religious Terror in Ireland, 1972); it is also a grievous sin (yea, “mortal sin”!) to stand up for Communist policies in SPAIN (Spanish Civil War, 1936). How­ever, it is always proper to promote and encourage and defend ROMAN policies in Mexico, South America, Spain, Ireland, England, Scotland, Germany, or the United States. With two standards of authority (chapter 5, note 42) one can alter foreign policy to match the odds: you simply reshuffle the deck if you don’t get dealt the right hand the first ten times.

Thomas a Becket (1118-1170) was born in London and became the Archbishop of Canterbury (chapter 12, notes 21-22), the main source of England’s seditions, civil wars, phony Bibles, church splits, and burn­ing of Lollards (see chapter 14). In 1155 King Henry II raised Thomas to the chancellorship of England, and until he became archbishop he was a bosom friend to Henry. Becket led troops into battle (Toulouse), attacked castles, razed towns, burned down houses, and carried out car­nage in general in the king’s service.10 According to some writers, he engaged in a moderate amount of immorality, drinking, feasts, and obscene jesting with the king,11 although pro-Catholic writers vigorously deny this (Philip Schaff, for instance) and insist that the cruelty he showed when leading troops was “quite compatible with medieval conceptions of piety and charity,” etc.12 That is, it was non-Biblical, non-Christian, pagan, and not worthy of being mentioned in any true history of “the church.”

When Henry installed Thomas as archbishop, Tommy warned him that he was about to lose a friend. Thomas was ordained and immediately acknowledged Alexander III as the rightful pope (Alexander granted indulgences for people who killed Bible believing Christians13). Then Tommy underwent a radical change; he daily washed the bare feet of thirteen beggars, he began to whip himself to pay for his sins, he dressed in sackcloth infested with vermin, he fed on roots, and he began to pro mote priestcraft.14 Of this “turn for the better,” Schaff says that it was only “unnatural and artificial.” A more honest observer might add that

it was non-Biblical, non-Christian, and completely contrary to everything found in the New Testament (Col. 2:20-23, Eph. 2:8-9). Tommy out- poped the pope when it came to ecclesiastical Pharisaism. However! He was careful never to rebuke his old buddy Hank for his sins against God and the Bible: he only mentions Hank’s actions against the politics of the Roman hierarchy.15

Secular taxation was the first rupture that put Tommy and Hank at “loggerheads” with each other. Since both of them represented a totalitarian system (an absolute monarchy versus an absolute poparchy), they eventually had to collide. Henry decided that if his people were taxed that the tax money should go to the English government (hinf f) instead of the Catholic church (the pope). Thomas, employed by the pope, naturally thought that tax money should go to the church, because, really, didn’t he draw his support from the church? In Thomas’s way of thinking, tax money should be used for Catholic schools, Catholic buses, Catholic nuns in the public school system, and it should be side­tracked in CARE packages to go to Catholic populations, etc. Thomas, therefore, immediately informed the king that England was “THOMAS’S LAND”—not the king’s.16 This probably came as quite a shock to Henry, who would have had a hard time conceiving of a whole kingdom belonging to a man with no more royal blood in him than a chimney sweep.

The next thing that happened was that a certain clerk (Philip of Broi) was acquitted of a murder charge in a bishops’ court because he was working for the bishops; he escaped trial by a civil court, although he murdered a citizen. In keeping with Catholic practice, “holy mother church” reserved for herself the right to judge her own clerics; that way she could let any killer off who might be useful later in overthrowing a government, and she could also kill off any of her “own” who might be picking up “heretical” ideas like those of the Lollards and the Bohe­mian Brethren. As a matter of fact, a court of bishops never sent any Catholic cleric to death for any crime except ' ‘heresy. ’ ’*7 Murder, adul­tery, rape, fornication, embezzlement, kidnapping, lying, stealing, fraud, and drunkenness were minor offences compared with teaching the Bible. Only flagellation, imprisonment, and degradation were passed out for other offences. When King Henry demanded that the murderer be tried where all murderers were tried—in a civil court—Thomas went to bat for the local Mafia and pleaded Nahum 1:9 and 1 Samuel 1-2-3 as scrip­tural proof that clerics were exceptions. Quite naturally, Thomas quoted the fifth column or Origen’s Hexapla,1* known to superstitious students, then as now, as “the Septuagint.” Incensed at Thomas’s sedition, Henry

drew up sixteen statutes called “The Clarendon Constitutions’’ (1164), which state, in effect, that clergymen are subject to the law of the land like anyone else (Rom. 13:1), that the church is not an independent foreign power with the right to overthrow the laws of nations, and that the king has the power to appoint his own bishops in his own country. Becket himself violated civil law and was summoned before a council. He appealed to the pope to help him “beat the rap,”19 and then, in case help was late in coming, Thomas snuck out of the land at night and fled for his life to France, where he spent six years in exile.

As soon as Thomas checked out, Henry confiscated all of his wealth (archbishops all become extremely wealthy after their “vows of pov­erty,” “foot-washing,” etc.), which was considerable. King Louis of France—an ardent persecutor of Albigenses and Waldenses—-spoke highly of Thomas and recommended him to the pope as a man who could be trusted to stir up and sustain sedition in England. So, the pope at this time in France (not Rome) gave back to Tommy all of his wealth and land in England (not in France, where Tommy was) that Henry had confiscated when Tommy took it on the lam. Tommy (in France, not England) then proceeded to excommunicate all Englishmen who agreed with the Constitutions of Clarendon and added that all Roman Catholic priests were the MASTERS of kings.20 Henry told him to “go jump in the lake.”

Well, after prolonged negotiations with the papal court and the king, Becket returned to England because by now, due to papal propaganda through the local priests, nunneries, and monasteries in England, Becket was able to return like Napoleon from Elba or MacArthur from Australia, or more properly, like Hitler to Vienna (1938). But once back, Thomas had to deal with the priests and prelates he had excommunicated when he was in France (see above). Being just as crafty as Thomas, they went to the king—who was then in a castle in Bayeux, Normandy—and “scouted him out” for his feelings about Thomas. After sensing the king’s temper and attitude, four of them went, without instructions, to Saltwood, England, and there they collected a band of a dozen armed men. They reached St. Augustine’s Abbey outside of the walls of Canterbury (chapter 12, notes 21-22) on December 29. They demanded from Thomas that he absolve all of the Englishmen whom he had excom­municated when he was hobnobbing with the pope in France. Becket refused on the grounds that the pope (not God) was his Lord and that he was obeying “God” (the pope) by defying the laws of the English kingdom (Rom. 13:1). That is, he could have saved his life if he had obeyed God (Rom. 13:1) instead of the pope. Thomas chose sacrilege

instead. This time his Bible rejecting idolatry and rebellion against the direct commandments of God (Rom. 13:1-4) cost him his life.

A few minutes before five the vesper bell tolled for “mass,” and Becket went to the high altar; he was followed by some knights who were clad in mail and carried drawn swords. The knights tried to drag him out of the sanctuary, but he braced himself against some pillars between “the altars of the Virgin” and “St. Benedict,” and while he was being struck down with swords and axes, he cried, “Lord receive my spirit.”21 However, just before saying this he told three whopping big lies: he called the Roman Catholic hierarchy “the church of God” (which it has not been, nor ever shall be); he called his own disobedience to the laws of England a “means for obtaining PEACE and LIBERTY” (same old gas); and, finally, Thomas pretended that the papal hierarchy he was dying for was Christ’s church, which it was not, nor ever shall be, world without end, amen.

However, the death of this one Bible perverting Catholic received more publicity and more sympathy than the massacre of 100,000 Bible believing people in France (see chapters 14, 17) and Holland. Miracles were supposed to have taken place in Becket’s room after his death; his fanatical partners in the hierarchy used Matthew 11:5 (!) as a proof text,22 carefully omitting, however, the last nine words in the verse— the last nine words refer to the preaching of the Gospel (chapter 7, note 75).

Becket was naturally canonized by Alexander III (while he was kill­ing Christians), as he saw the tide was now moving in his direction, and this put such a bind on Henry that he had to roll around in sackcloth and ashes a few days and whip himself to prove that he had no part in the assassination. Ultimately, Henry had to promise the pope every­thing short of his soul that he would prove he was “a true son of the faith,” so he went around in a woolen shirt, with bleeding feet, kissing sacred stones and crying on the crypt, etc.,23 in order to hold his kingdom together; it held.

By this highly publicized stage show, Canterbury became the great­est sacred spot on the globe outside of Rome and Jerusalem; everyone from tinkers and mechanics to priests, nobles, and barons came there; plenary indulgences were granted to pilgrims. The offerings to “Saint” Thomas exceeded those given to any other saint—even to the Holy Virgin.24

In short, the theatrical fiasco was a howling success. Pope Alexander in France had succeeded in finding a chump who was gullible enough to fight his battle in England for him under the illusion that he was serving

God—exactly as the French kings were enlisted to kill Bible believers for him under the same illusion (John 16:2)—and he got him to lay down his life to create a rallying point for disobedience to English law and for dictatorial control over the populace of Europe. When Admiral Coligny was murdered (St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, August 18, 1572) by Catholic butchers, no crypt was erected, no pilgrimages were made to his tomb, no indulgences were granted to anyone but his killers, and “offerings” were out of the question. Admiral Coligny had the misfortune to be a Bible believing Huguenot instead of a papal wor­shipping politician.

Moral: if you get murdered by Catholics in France, you don’t get a by-line on the fourth page; if you get murdered by anti-Catholics in England, you get the whole front page for the next five hundred years.

The next chump into the ring was King John of England, but this time the pope (Innocent III, the killer of the Albigenses) failed to pick a winner. Pope Innocent came into conflict with John over the successor to Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury (chapter 12, notes 21-22). Stephen Langton got it, and King Johnny didn’t like Stevie, so he confiscated all the property of Canterbury chapel and expelled the monks. Innocent III threatened an interdict, which he not only placed on England, but he added a little curse on Johnny just to make it stick.25 In 1212 the pope declared the throne of England to be vacant, as he (the pope) was “god,” and “God” set up “the powers that be” (chapter 14, note 211). By 1214 John had fallen into line, and on May 15, 1213, he signed over the entire British Empire to the pope: “We do freely offer and grant to.. .the holy Roman Church our MOTHER.. .and to the Pope and his catholic successors THE WHOLE REALM OF ENGLAND.”26 What a modern pope wouldn’t give to get a present like that for Christ­mas! One could not ask for a better deal, and the pope was highly pleased with it—until a yewe after he lifted the interdict. At that time (June 15, 1215) John's nobles and many of his bishops ganged up on him and placed before him the first declaration of independence known to the English people: they made him sign the Magna Charta. Among other things, it said that a man was entitled to a trial by jury, that he could not be incarcerated for months at a time waiting for trial, and that, above all, the king couldn’t levy taxes against ANYONE anymore until a vote had been given by a common council of the realm.2''

That tied the rag on the bush.

Johnny phoned up his erstwhile buddy Pope Innocent Ill and said, "I goofed...I done signed a piece of paper that...." (Well, it wasn t exactly like that, but you get the idea). Innocent, recognizing immediately

that anyone’s liberty was detrimental to Catholicism, absolved John of his oath that he had sworn28 when signing the paper because, obviously, the Magna Charta would eventually be the death of every pope as well as every king. After all, both of them were Fascist dictators propagating a totalitarian system. Any independent liberties granted to anyone would be a threat to both of them, so Pope Innocent (what a name) now took sides with the man he had just cursed and interdicted. When you have two standards of authority, you can always switch back and forth, so both of them are only “relative”: relative to what you are trying to obtain, since YOU are the final authority (chapter 5, note 42). Pope Innocent declared the Magna Charta “null and void for all time,”29 absolved John of his oath, cursed all the prelates who sided with the Charta, put England under a papal ban, and then kicked the bucket.

Now, lest the reader should think we are speaking of church history with tongue in cheek, let him note that there is no more resemblance between the conduct of Henry, Tommy, Johnny, or Pope Innocent (given above) and the conduct of a New Testament Christian than there is be­tween the conduct of a pogrom and a Bible conference. No one is dealing with church history in describing any of the things listed above. He is dealing with papal politics and ambitions versus monarchial nation­alism. Church history is completely out of the question.

Anti-church history would also properly include a brief examination of the university system (Scholasticism) that arose in Europe following the Crusades. This represented the “Culture” which followed the Bible preaching and teaching of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Poor Men of Lyons, Lollards, etc. Culture, in this case, amounted to the theological speculations of unsaved philosophers who were counting on baby sprin­kling to give them the new birth.

Again, one can find “good” coming from “evil” (chapter 5), if he looks close enough for it, but when he has to look as hard as we are having to look in the Dark Ages to find a New Testament witness, there is something obviously wrong with the “stage lighting.” Where someone has thrown the main breaker, we are left to matches and flash­lights to find something on the stage that resembles church history. There is nothing about the beliefs or teachings of Anselm, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Aquinas, or Bonaventure that would make anyone familiar with the Bible think that any of them were connected with New Testament Christianity.

The universities were a cultural product of the Bible rejecting Cath­olic mind; like Charlemagne’s culture, they were a substitute for believ­ing the Book and going by it. They first arose in Italy (Salerno and

Bologna) and were followed by schools in Paris, Prague, Vienna, Erfurt, Heidelberg, Cologne, and Glasgow. The ones at Toulouse and Rome were founded by papal bulls; the ones at Padua, Oxford, and Cambridge were not under a papal or royal charter. The Spanish universities (Salamanca, Seville, and Valencia) were founded by the kings of Castile. University (universitas vestra) means “your body’’ or “all of you.” It was a kind of UNIVERSAL (“Catholic”) way of saying “all of you who make up the body.” Four faculties were taught: philosophy (see Col. 2:8), law (Luke 11:46), medicine, and theology; there were three ranks of degrees which followed the Jewish degrees (Rab, Rabbi, and Rabbak) after Origen’s North African system (chapter 5, notes 45-46): bachelor, licentiate, and doctor, which corresponds to the three grades of the merchant’s guilds: apprentice, assistant (journeyman), and master. Lectures were given in Latin; Paris, Bologna, and Oxford were the three main universities.

The big bull-shooting sessions that went on in these Catholic schools had to do with Plato and Aristotle (see Col. 2:8 and comments in that commentary), exactly as the mess had gone on in Alexandria between 100-400 A.D. Realism and nominalism became the cute, little names for the cute, little games that the Alexandrian Cult played while their church was burning, stabbing, drowning, racking, whipping, impris­oning, exiling, and strangling Bible believing Christians (1000-1400 A.D.).

Anselm (1033-1109) was a perfect example of Alexandrian culture preserved by the Cult: he said that there were two courses of knowledge and both agreed with a third: that is, two conflicting authorities (chapter 4, note 5), with the third playing “god” as the decisive authority. This third authority to Anselm was philosophy (Col. 2:8). We may scratch Anselm if we have learned anything from history.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was bold enough to say that the scriptures had no errors in them30 and that some of the church fathers had erred, so he was promptly accused of “Sabellianism” (chapter 9, notes 12-13). He got around the charges, however, by holding to infant baptism, the black magic of the mass, etc., which, after all, were the big issues any­way. Sabellianism was never a real issue any more than Arianism or “Monophysitism” or Gay Liberation (chapter 14, notes 144-146).

Peter the Lombard (1100-1160) was the father of systematic theology in the Roman church and the “greatest” (chapter 14, notes 121-131) teacher and representative of scholastic theology. He believed in bap tismal regeneration by sprinkling babies, the literal drinking of Christ s unbloody blood at mass, no assurance of salvation till death, purgatory

the whole, sick bit. Peter the Lombard would kill a Bible believer as quick as look at him.

Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) was an Italian Catholic from Naples. He was educated in the well-known Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino, where he became a Dominican monk. He studied under Albertus Magnus (1200-1280), a German philosopher (Bishop of Ratisbon) who was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1932. Thomas wrote the Summa Theologia, which is a mass of perverted scripture, distorted doctrine, tortuous rationalization, pagan philosophy, and Alexandrian hot air. He is commended by Elgin Moyer31 for his “industry” and “logical dis­cernment.” Aquinas was about as logical as Charles Darwin or Richard Nixon, but you have to say something good about any Catholic who was reputed to have been “good.” Thomas Aquinas is called by religious fanatics “the Angelic Doctor” (Doctor Angelicas) or the “Prince of the Schoolmen,” and Schaff places him next to Augustine and Origen32 (which is pretty good placement). Thomas Aquinas was a man of “rare genius,” slobbers Schaff, “a man with wisdom and purity of life,” etc. He was also one of the outstanding Bible rejecting apostates of his­tory who gave his unqualified support to the torturing and killing of “heretics” by the Inquisition.33

Professing (as Bob Jones, III; Panosian; Custer; Sumner; Rice; and Neal) to believe that the scriptures were the FINAL AUTHORITY and that the testimony of the church fathers was only “probable,”34 Thomas proceeded to dish up this fantastic imbroglio of preposterous nonsense.

1. Infants are detained in hell for the sin of Adam. If the sacrament of baptism is not given, the babies are lost forever, for there is no sal­vation without Roman Catholic water baptism.35

2. The Catholic church can save or damn anyone by giving or refus­ing to give water baptism to them.36

3. The corpse of Jesus Christ is completely whole in 150,000 wafers and 150,000 chalices every Sunday morning without there being more than one corpse.31

4. There is no Millennium, no restoration of Israel, no Judgment Seat of Christ, no Rapture, and no Tribulation.

5. The pope has the right to kill “heretics,”38 and all kings should be in subjection to the Roman Catholic “pope.”

For a man who professed to believe in the final authority of the Bible (like Machen, Warfield, Robertson, Hort, Horton, Hutson, Sumner, and Laird Harris), Thomas was about as consistent as United States foreign policy. Luther identified the Summa as “the fountain and original soup of all error and Gospel havoc,”3’ but the head of the ASV

committee of 1901 is careful to correct the German reformer by saying that Thomas Aquinas must merit our admiration for his “candor and clearness" and by his “sincerity and purity" as an ethical thinker.40 His ethics (commending an Inquisition) were about as pure as a septic tank, and he is about as “clear” on Biblical truth as Origen and Constantine.

Schaff simply was either too cowardly (which Luther was not) or too ignorant to call a spade a spade (chapter 14, notes 121-131). It would have given his church history an “anti-Roman” flavor; someone might have accused Schaff of being prejudiced if he had given God the benefit of a doubt or the Bible credit for being able to estimate a man and his work better than the “passing of time.” Schaff, as all religious evolu­tionists, believed implicitly that every dispensation ended higher than when it began (see chapter 5, notes 1-7).

William of Ockham (1300-1349) is the only Schoolman who even approached a Biblical theology. He is considered to be the last of the Scholastics. Ockham was born in Surrey, England, and studied at Oxford, which meant he was subjected to English anti-Roman Christi­anity (chapter 12, notes 10-16) long before he began to teach in Paris. Ockham taught that the Bible alone was inerrant and that a Christian should not believe ANYTHING not found in that Book, no matter who authorized it or who recommended it.41 That is to say, in the eyes of a modern, apostate Fundamentalist (1940-1990), Ockham was a “hell raising nut” trying to start a “cult” of “Bibliolators.” Human nature doesn’t change. Further, Ockham taught that the New Testament church was not the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but the “community of the faith­ful.” William flatly denied the infallibility of any pope. Consequently, Pope John XXII tried him and found him guilty of heresy and had him imprisoned.42 He was also excommunicated by Benedict XII.43

While Ockham was teaching these Bible truths, the teachings of Duns Scotus (1265-1308) were all over Europe. Duns Scotus (from whom comes the term “dunce”) taught that Mary was conceived sinless and that one must accept transubstantiation as dogma even though it couldn’t be a FACT.44

Returning to the “dog eat dog” contest between the papal Fascists and the European monarchs, we find in this corner Pope Boniface, (1294-1303) squaring off with the French King Philip "d™ ^a'r (1268-1314). All of which belongs properly to anti-church history . Dante (Divina Commedia) calls Boniface the “Prince of modern Pharisees and refers to his “Holy See” (the Vatican Hill) as “a sewer of corrup­tion”—which, one will have to admit, is not a very kindly way to talk

about the “Holy Father.” Dante graciously deposits Boniface into the lowest circle of hell with Pope Nicolas Ill and Pope Clement V, two other “Vicars of Jesus Christ,” etc.45 In Philip the Fair of France, Boniface met his match; it was sort of like Laban and Jacob trying each other out for size (Gen. 30:27-29) or like Franco and Hitler trying to work out the Gibraltar Agreements (October 1940). Like the Catholic popes, Philip was treacherous, double-tongued, imperious, and utterly unscrupulous in the use of means to secure ends; albeit, he did not demand to be called “holy father.” One might say that Philip was a “pope without a folio.”

Boniface claimed with all the modesty of the Antichrist that the Roman pontiff (himself) was “known in all the earth and ALONE is MOST HIGH over princes.”46 And, after all, this was an extremely modest viewpoint since the pagan pontiffs for five hundred years before Boniface had reserved for themselves (without blushing) the exclusive title given to God the Father by Jesus Christ (John 17:11). Philip got off to a bad start with the “most high” (see above) by taxing the French clergy so he could get enough money to fight the English. Taxing Cath­olic priests is a “no, no.” It is all right to tax Baptist, Methodist, Pres­byterian, and Lutheran ministers in America (1980-1990) and make them fill out income tax reports, but not so with the subversive agents from Rome: they are tax exempt.45

Boniface threatened to interdict Philip if he didn’t straighten up and fly right (shape up or ship out, etc.). The pope called a council and declared in a “bull” (Dec. 5, 1301) that the pope’s orders transcended those of the king of France or anyone in the kingdom of France; all citizens of France were to obey the pope in Italy instead of their own king in their own country. Hoping to bring Philip down on his knees in the snow like Henry at Canossa (notes 2-3), or at least to a groveling position on a dead priest’s grave (like Henry at Canterbury, note 23), Boniface wrote to Philip and said: “Listen, you jerk....” (Or at least something like that.)

“Boniface Bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Philip King of the French. Fear God and keep His commandments. We desire thee to take notice that thou art subject to us both in spiritual and in temporal matters... those who think otherwise we account HERETICS.”48

Now, note! Observe, to a Catholic, HERESY is not a matter of Biblical perversion, false teaching, religious convictions, or doctrinal error: HERESY is a matter of not donating money to HIS CHURCH when his church demands it.

This was a candid threat that if Philip didn’t shell out he would

be burned at the stake; that’s what the popes did with “heretics” (see chapter 14).

But Philip the Fair was one of those rare characters in history, like Gallio or Richard the Lion Hearted, whom you couldn’t scare with a scaring machine. Upon receiving this outrageous epistle from the ego­maniac, Philip responded with “Philip, by the grace of God King of the French, to Boniface who enacts the Sovereign Pontiff: small greetings or none. Let thy SUPERLATIVE FATUITY take notice that we are subject to no one in temporal matters. Those who think otherwise we account FOOLS AND MADMEN."”

And there Philip faced the issue which no Congress of Fundamen­talists in America (1970-1990) ever dared face: he faced the issue of FINAL AUTHORITY and told the qualified, recognized authority to go take a flying jump at his rosary. Philip had called the supreme authority of the holy, apostolic, Roman Catholic church an INSANE FOOL (see above).

If the wording had been “updated” under different circumstances, one might have read this curious correspondence: “The body of godly, Conservative scholars who are qualified and recognized Biblical author­ities, to the Bible believing Christians: fear God and follow our prefer­ences and recommendations. We desire you to take notice that you are subject to us both in church and school matters; those who think other­wise we account as RUCKMANITES.” And in return, “Peter S. Ruckman, by the grace of God a saved sinner, to the entire body of Conservative scholars who pretend to be the final authority in matters of Biblical interpretation: small greetings or none. Let you puffed up, bloated egotists take notice that we Bible believers are not subject to you in ANY matters, let alone matters of Biblical scholarship, and those who think otherwise we account as APOSTATE LUNATICS.”

Sometimes “updating the archaic English” produces strange results.

At any rate, Boniface interdicted France, cursed Philip, and then issued a bull (Unum Sanctum) which became a classic in Catholic “ortho­doxy.” It has never been altered or rescinded by any twentieth century pope. Unum Sanctum states that the Roman Catholic church is the true church and outside of it there is no salvation, that the pope is the Vicar of Christ, that literal weapons can be used to kill those who disagree with him, and finally that every human being on earth (a totalitarian system) must obey the Catholic pope in Italy or go to hell.50 One clause in this naked and revealing “confession of faith” stated that everyone who resisted the pope was a “MANICHAEAN” (chapter 14, notes 58-62). Thus Philip or anyone else could become a “heretic on non

doctrinal grounds (chapter 14, notes 152-157) by pretending that he erred on doctrinal grounds. Thus, there finally came to light after nine hundred years of camouflaged piety the true purpose and intent of the original “Council of Nicaea’’ (see chapter 8): the purpose was to set Bible believers up for the kill if they would not obey the Bride of Satan.

Philip had found himself in the position of Savonarola and Joan of Arc: a theological heretic because he wouldn’t knuckle down to a pope in MONEY matters. Evidently the pope’s “god” was his BELLY (Rom. 16:18). Having confounded the temporal with the spiritual, the literal with the figurative, and the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Heaven, the perverted four-flusher decided that LACK OF INCOME was proof of “unorthodox beliefs."

Boniface kicked Philip off his throne (verbally) en absentee and told the German king (Frederick II) that he could have it: popes are as generous with other people’s money and lands as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Papa Boniface had decided to put the ban on Philip on September 8 and release his subjects from allegiance, but he never got to carry out his plans. A professor of law at Montpelier in France (William of Nogaret)—whose parents had been burned at the stake in southern France because they were Cathari (chapter 14, note 63)—got together with three hundred Frenchmen and went down to see “his superlative fatuity.” They entered the papal residence and found “the most high” seated on a throne with a crown on his head and a crucifix in one hand and the keys of Janus in the other51 (and probably a bat in his belfry). After some pious claptrap about being “willing to die for Christ and His church” (see Becket, notes 21-22)—meaning my power and my own authority (i.e., my belly)—Boniface was arrested by Nogaret, who dragged him out of his palace and tossed him into the clink. Unfortunately, in the scuffle that took place a vase was turned over and broken which contained “milk from Mary’s breasts.”52 (It probably didn’t spill, however, as milk that is 1200 years old has usually clabbered.)

Boniface died of melancholy and despair and, according to some, as Philip had pegged him all along: insane.53

While men like Philip and Boniface were playing ring-around-the- rosy following Henry and Innocent (notes 25-28) or Henry and Alexander (notes 20-23), the Lord was disseminating Biblical truth through under­ground sources. We call this work "tractarian literature,” and it floods Europe in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. Dante, Aegidius Colonna, Henry of Cassaloci, John of Paris, and Pierre Dubois all wrote out strongly against papal Catholicism, and their literary attacks

augmented the constant street preaching of Lollards, Waldenses, Bohe­mian Brethren, Arnoldists, Henricians, and Vaudois. This tractarian literature gave the popes a fit.54 Among other things it stated that:

1. The pope had no right to punish anyone with penalties like death, imprisonment, fines, or exile, and the church had the right to call any pope to account for his sins.

2. Priests should be allowed to marry, and the pope had no business messing in the affairs of state.

3. The “church” is the Body of Christ, not a Roman Catholic hier­archy, and the head of the “church” (1 Cor. 12:1-13) is Jesus Christ, not some “pope” (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18).

With these terrible “heresies” being circulated all over Europe, and particularly in southern France and northern Italy (chapter 14, notes 52, 68, 73), the popes found their worldly influence shrinking and their spirituality being questioned daily in the marketplaces. As a consequence, they were driven to desperate measures and bloodier methods (chapter 14) in order to prove that “the gates of hell” would not prevail against THEM, since they fancied themselves to be the “head of the church” mentioned in Matthew 16:18.

The most Biblical of these tractarian works was a writing by Marsilius of Padua (1270-1343) which stated the position already taken by the Bogomiles, Paulicians, Waldenses, and Paterines more than five hundred years before it was written. With the help of a certain John of Jandun, Marsilius wrote the Defensor Pads, which states that:

1. There are no political successors of St. Peter, only those who imitate his life of humility and devotion.

2. No Catholic can forgive sins or punish sins, be he priest or pope.

3. No bishop or priest has the right to interdict or excommunicate anyone without the consent of their own government.

4. Peter was not any more powerful or authoritative than any other apostle, and he was the bishop of ANTIOCH (chapter 11, note 76), not ROME. (Someone was doing some Bible reading.)

5. The ultimate and final authority for the church is the Bible, and the Bible does not get its authority from the church, but rather visa versa.

Catholic historians refer to Marsilius as the forerunner of Calvin and Luther,55 forgetting that the Waldenses taught all this a hundred years before Marsilius was born.56

Pope Clement VI found no less than 240 “heretical clauses in this work; Marsilius himself referred to Pope John XII (1327) as the devil of Revelation 12:9—“the great dragon,” “that old serpent.

The heat was on.

The successor to Boniface (returning to anti-church history) was Benedict XI (1303-1304), who bowed before Philip and put an end to their conflict. Benedict’s death was ascribed to poison put into a dish of figs.57 A conclave was then called in Perugia to get a new “papa.” It was torn by factions. The problem was simple: the French king was too powerful and had too big an army; obviously, France would have to have some special “dispensations” or “blessings” from the Vatican due to her threatening position. (When your god is your belly, you have to take care that somebody doesn’t rip your belly open.) The French party naturally won out in the election and chose a character by the name of Bertrand DeGot (Archbishop of Bordeaux), who took on the alias of “Clement V. ’’However, Bertrand never got to cross the Alps to Rome, the “holy city.” The French king figured that a bird in the hand was better than one in the bush; that is, you could control a pope better from Paris if the pope was in France instead of Rome, so Pope Clement V sat down in Avignon, France, in 1309, after holding courts in Bordeaux, Poitiers (sometimes Poictiers), and Toulouse.

And thus, at the drop of a hat (or a crown, or a tiara, or something), the Eternal City, the Holy See of Blessed Simon Peter at St. Peters, etc., was discarded like a worn-out billfold: it was no longer politically expedient.

From this time (1309-1379 or 1305-1377) began the so-called “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” The nomenclature was chosen by perfidious Catholics who liked to think that Rome was Babylon when Peter said “Babylon” in 1 Peter 5:13 (proving he was in Rome, not Babylon: see Taylor’s “Living Bible, ” 1 Peter 5:13), but now Avignon was Babylon—not Rome. When you have more than one authority (see any of the faculty members at Bob Jones University, Falwell’s school in Lynchburg, Pensacola Christian College, etc.) you can always switch the dice when the heat gets on.

Transplanted from its sacred soil, the papacy was now cut loose from all the hallowed associations connected with five to ten centuries of murder, fraud, lying, cheating, stealing, lying degrees, embezzlement, forged documents, and downright blasphemy. What could be worse? The next seven popes were all of French extraction: Clement, John, Benedict, Clement, Innocent, Urban, and Gregory. To go into the details of the lives of these twice-plucked-up-by-the-roots charlatans is a waste of time for a church historian. When the papacy returned to Rome there had been no change in the Biblical climate of Rome or Avignon. Although Satan may have been divided against himself for a few years, he still had enough power in 1379 to pick up the business of killing Christians right on through the Renaissance (see chapter 14).

Since the propagation of the word of God is always attended by revivals of learning, increases in liberty, the raising of moral standards, and higher standards of living, so the constant efforts of the “heretics” in these times (1100-1300) had to bring forth cultural fruits of a better kind than those produced by Bible rejecting sacramentalists whose first concern was power politics. Modern Communists and atheists (1900-1990) wrongly ascribe the horrors and superstitions of the Dark Ages to Bible preaching or Bible teaching; this shows their phenomenal lack of education and intelligence. No man who studies church history would believe (not even if he read a church history written by a Catholic historian) that the religious insanity and moral degeneration of the times had anything to do with anybody even reading a Bible, let alone teaching or preaching it.

As the stomach of the “Holy” (saints preserve us!) Roman Empire was growling from its inability to digest all of the “dissenters” and “heretics” within it—probably over 8,000,000 if one counts the Cathari and Lollards in with the Waldenses. Albigenses, Bohemian Brethren, and other “Manichaeans” (notes 50-51)—some movement toward the truth had to be made. Since the halfway measures adopted by the ancho­rites and flagpole sitters had worked in their day (see chapter 11), the intelligentsia in the Catholic church began to devise a halfway out of the mess they found themselves in. Men of good taste, even if uncon­verted, could hardly tolerate a fat-head who thought that everyone on earth must obey him (Boniface, Unum Sanctum). Further, no thinking man of any intellectual degree (saved or lost) could stomach the smell of burning flesh coming off of the mutilated bodies of women and chil­dren, including infants less than five years old. Compromisers and men pleasers within the church were forced again (see chapter 11) to run for shelter somewhere so they would not be “misunderstood.” Turn to the Bible they could not, for they didn’t have the courage (John 12:42-43). Anyplace was safer than standing with your feet planted on the eternal word of the living God. So the most logical thing to do now was to turn to art, literature, and music; which they did. CULTURE always follows evangelism and Bible teaching (chapter 5, notes 18-19).

Historians call this “rebirth” of learning the Renaissance; some of the historians date it with Dante (1264-1321), while other with the Avignon split (1309). The Renaissance for southern Europe amounted to a return to Greek and Roman classicism with an emphasis on nude bodies in sculpture and art. In northern Europe it amounted to an empha sis on the dignity of man (humanism) and classical studies in the literature of ancient Greece and Rome—particularly the church fathers and the

New Testament manuscripts. Dante, Michelangelo, DaVinci, Raphael, Titian, Perugino, Petrarca, Boccaccio, and Palestrina belong properly to non-church history, that is, secular history. Their associations with popes and Catholic patrons have nothing to do with church history. Since, unlike the popes, they do not become engaged in militant attempts to eradicate Biblical Christianity, they cannot properly be the subject of anti-church history. (Perhaps they should be the subject of semi-church history.) Since our major concern is to document the history of the New Testament church, such men will have to occupy very small niches in the “hall of fame.” Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, for example (and the Decameron of Boccaccio) were nothing but anthologies from Playboy and Esquire magazines; they were plainly pornographic, although if you call pornography “art” (1980), you can get away with it.

Dante cooked up a story where Vergil and Beatrice led him through heaven, purgatory, and hell, and when he got to hell he found a few “Holy Fathers” there (Anastasius II, Nicolas III, Boniface VIII, et al.). Cato of Utica and Trajan were messing around in purgatory; Trajan because Pope Gregory I was supposed to have prayed him out of hell. Dante has the devil reigning in hell instead of roaming about on the earth (1 Peter 5:8), so I am sure no one could accuse him of “dualism”: the religious powers on earth had no devil around to bother them.

Petrarca (1304-1374) wrote Italian sonnets and songs. He always carried a copy of Augustine’s Confessions with him, and he idolized Cicero and Vergil—two heathen poets. Petrarca liked Plato (Col. 2:8). There is no evidence that he believed the Bible any more than any pope. Boccaccio (1313-1375) wrote nothing that could be classified as Christian literature one way or another. Various names are connected with the progress and the patrons of classical studies: Leonardo Bruni, Cosimo de’Medici, Lorenzo de’Medici, Lamndino, Pico della Mirandola, Federigo da Montefletro, Alfonso of Naples, Nicolas V (1447-1455), Besarion, Emmanuel Chrysolarus, Carlo Marsuppini, Francesco Filelfo, Pietro Bembo, Biacopo Sadoieto, Aleander, and others. This was the gang that Savonarola preached against (chapter 14, notes 154-157), and when he thundered against the rich prelates with their “chalices of gold and silver and their hearts of wood,” he was referring to Pope Nicolas, among others. One of Savonarola’s main theme songs was the “doctors of humanities” who spent their time messing around with art, poetry, and music while the world was going to hell all around them.58

Following the infallible cycle: Evangelism, Teaching, Culture, Apostasy, and Paganism, the world of Renaissance fell to pieces under the hands of the “restorers of arts and sciences” and the “brilliant

geniuses of those who recovered the lost culture of,” etc. Paganism was restored (1400-1500) to Rome. When culture is substituted for Bib­lical Christianity it merely produces a milder paganism than Roman Catholicism: Roman Catholicism substituted TRADITION for the Bible. The humanists sacrificed in secret to the gods of Greece and Rome rather than the “god” of Catholicism—the pope. It came out Satan either way (2 Cor. 4:4).

The chief thing wrong with the art, music, literature, and philosophy of humanism was that humanism was (and is) simply one more dead end into which intelligentsia ran in an effort to duck out of Bible truth. The pagan humanists, Socialists, agnostics, writers, atheists, artists, scientists, or Communists of any age are always getting holed up in some blind alley every time they run from falsehood. In the Renaissance you had the humanists holed up in one blind alley and the Catholics (nuns, monks, popes, prelates, archbishops, etc.) holed up in another one. By 1490 there were 6,800 public prostitutes in Rome, not counting the pope’s and priests’ concubines.59 The terminus of the Renaissance in southern Europe could be anticipated: Pope Leo X sitting in a theater in Rome enjoying a comedy called Suppositi. The scenery was painted by Raphael, and the play was about the seduction of a girl by her father’s servant.60 Such plays were not on the Catholic “Index.” The kind of plays that are on the Index are plays like “Abbie’s Irish Rose.”

‘‘But is it art?” is the question that always arises when sex is glam­orized or pornography is promoted. The glamorization of the nude body was what eventually consigned Greece to the scrap heap of the nations (400-100 B.C.). The parading of the marriage bed on the screen, first privately in theaters and then universally in the living rooms through television, finished America off in 1970 as a nation. We recognize, of course, that rejection of the word of God is always the primary cause for degeneration, apostasy, and deterioration, but this rejection is fol­lowed immediately by CULTURE (Evangelism, Education, Culture, Apostasy). What appears as the genius of man, the outflowing of artistic impulses, the creative spontaneity of the human spirit, the flowering of humanity’s aspirations, etc., is often just adultery and murder var­nished and veneered with the right amount of paint (Macbeth, Il Trovatore, Othello) so it will please the taste buds (Siegfried, Madam Butterfly, La Boheme) of refined adulterers and murderers (Il Pagliacci, Cavalleria Rusticana, Carmen, etc.). The point with the Bible believer is not “how much good do these things accomplish?” A hurricane or a tornado can accomplish some “good,” depending upon which standard of authority you are using to define your own terms. There is no point

of asking “what would we do without such things?” The point is “WHAT DID GOD SA Y ABOUT SUCH THINGS? ’' According to the major his­torians, major philosophers, and major educators, God said NOTHING. They never let any verse in either Testament interfere with their own book sales based on their “preferences.”

Everywhere we turn in the history of man we are faced with this problem: what is the final standard of authority by which a man can judge art, literature, music, philosophy, science, education, politics, and history itself? The final authority for the child of God is the Holy Bible; not once does a pope, or a cardinal, ambassador, professor, or scientist ever enter that area: they are here to give conflicting or assenting opinions to what has already been FIXED. With one standard there can be no confusion or anarchy, no doubt, and no possibility of apostasy, at least not where that Book is loved and obeyed. Loving a religion and obeying a “pope” is something else. Two standards of authority are always erected to produce confusion or anarchy so that a third authority can slip in behind the confusion and take over. If history (secular or sacred) teaches one lesson, it teaches THAT.

However much one becomes enchanted and even fascinated by the spirit of man (the Bible never brags about man’s art, literature, music, or philosophy) manifested in his art, music, and literature (the Renais­sance), one must never forget that it is still the unregenerate spirit of the Adamic nature (Eph. 2:1-4) controlled by the “prince of the power of the air.” However charitable, artistic, benevolent, humanistic, and refined this spirit may be, it is still under the direct control of its parent (Eph. 2:2), the father of lies (John 8:40-46). Humanism is deceptive (Matt. 10:17). It is the smile on the face of a tiger. It is man’s substituting the second commandment for the first one: it is man’s substitute for believing and obeying God. “See? Look what I’ve done!”

If there is any doubt in the reader’s mind about the outcome of the culture of this period (or any other period), let him face the brutal facts of 1400-1500 A.D. In the midst of the Renaissance and following all of this “return to the classics,” this “great literary effort of the talented humanists,” etc., Europe was under the iron bondage of the Roman Catholic church; and following her demonic leadership, the populace of Europe (with the exceptions of those being burned at the stake for not following her leadership) was practicing “Christianity” according to these formulas:

1 • Paganism was to be tolerated and encouraged as long as it did not hurt the unity and power of the bishops in the area where it was being practiced. Leo XIII says, “It has been and always will be the

intent of the tradition of the Apostolic See to make large allowances in all that is right and GOOD for the primitive tradition and special customs of every nation. ”61 What this means is that the pagan customs of any nation are to be retained if they are “good.” Note that when a Roman Catholic pope says ‘ ‘good, ’ ’ he has no reference to one verse of scripture anywhere in any Bible. “Good” in Catholic fiction means “favorable to the papacy.” That should be abundantly clear by this time in history.

The introduction of fraud and superstitious ideas into the “purity” of the Catholic church is no reason for abolishing “received, popular, reasonable, and consoling institutions.”62 In the foregoing, “reasonable and consoling” is not a reference to anything Biblical; it means anything that the hierarchy considers to be “reasonable and consoling,” by what­ever standard of authority they choose to use at that time (New ASV one time, NIV the next time, AV the next time, etc.). This approach guarantees that no populace evangelized by Catholic Augustinians, Fri­ars, Jesuits, Dominicans, or Franciscans ever gets rid of its paganism (chapter 12, notes 5-8, 34). It also explains why Italy, Spain, Cuba, and Central and South America are the most fertile fields today for Communism. A mass of unconverted pagans has no Lord or God to comfort them or supply their needs: they will have to submit to a Catholic-Soviet dictatorship. “Evangelism” or the “expansion of Chris­tianity ’ ’ that is based on infant baptism or enforced baptism (chapter 12, note 52), allowing the “convert” to retain any anti-Biblical insti­tutions he wants to as long as he knuckles down to Roman dominion produces nothing but a double-damned “child of hell’’ (Matt. 23:15), according to the Author and Founder of “Christianity” (Heb. 12:2).

The proof of this is in the pudding. Following the “rebirth” of learning (the Renaissance), the Catholic membership under the popes went right on praying to Adalard (deceased) when beset by fever and typhus, praying to St. Denis for headaches, to St. Appolonis for tooth­aches, to St. Andrew for a good catch of fish, to St. Anastasus, the patron saint of goldsmiths, to St. Stanislas Kostka for palpitation of the heart, to St. Ouen for deafness, to St. Panteleon for consumption, to St. Vitus for nervousness, to St. Hilary for trouble with snakes, to St. Lawrence for lumbago, and to St. Gregory of Neo Caesarea for trouble with floods.63 That is about one-fifth of the list. Rome allowed any “Christian” to pray to his pagan gods as long as a Catholic list was substituted for the originals.64 The Vatican edition of the Catholic Dic­tionary lists over sixty saints that a Catholic is to pray to.65 Also, one must never forget that it is the Council of Trent that followed the Renats-

sance (1546). The Council of Trent (after two hundred years of art, culture, literature, and music) stated (Canon X) that if “anyone says that all Christians have power to administer the WORD, let him be anath­ema."66

That’s what the “rebirth of learning” did for the leaders of the Catholic church who sat around looking at nudes painted and sculptured by “artists.”

2. The central point of idolatry remained the black African magic of the sacrificial “altar,” where a Baalite priest conjured up a corpse. Christians were told they must never CHEW Jesus Christ,67 they must simply swallow Him, and it would be wise for them not to spit any time during the day after they swallowed “Jesus Christ.”68 The fantastic expansion of this blasphemous fraud issued in low masses, high masses, conventual masses, nuptial masses, golden masses, private masses, votive masses, evening masses, midnight masses, requiem masses, etc., with the explicit understanding that any child who died “unbaptized” was excluded from the “benefits” in performing an act of black magic for a dead person.69 According to what authority? Easy: according to any authority you need in order to contradict the word of God.70 If one trans­lation won’t back up the heresy, buy another one; if one church father doesn’t teach it, get one that does; if one pope doesn’t condone it, find one that does; if one Greek text doesn’t have it, find one that does. Every criminal politician, professional huckster, con man, religious per­vert, and every killer on the face of this earth held to some authority higher than THE BOOK.

We are dealing here with anti-church history.

The blasphemous claims of these Bible perverting murderers are beyond anything that Stalin, Hitler, or Mao Tse-tung ever claimed for themselves. Neither Karl Marx, nor Engels, nor the writers of the ‘‘Protocols" in their wildest tirades against liberty and humanity (in the name of liberty and humanity, of course) ever attained the obscene and outrageous heights scaled by the Catholic hierarchy. They said that their priests were more than “Christ hanging on the cross,” and the priest “is not just the cross, he is CHRIST HIMSELF."1' That was writ­ten by “Father” Brigante, a Texas Catholic in the twentieth century.

Witchcraft, according to the popes, suddenly became terribly aggra­vated just before the Reformation broke out. This curious coincidence is even more “coincidental” when we note that the mania for “witches” began in Rome, and from there it went to Spain before entering Germany, France, and Scotland.72 Gregory IX, addressing the bishops of Mainz and Hildesheim (1233), recommended executing witches on the grounds

of 1 Kings 18. Since all popes were Post-millennial (as Augustine) and “theocratic kingdom builders” (as Calvin), they did not hesitate to go to the Old Testament when they wanted to resort to carnal warfare—in direct violation of the New Testament (2 Cor. 10:4).

Witches naturally had “forsaken the Catholic faith” and were con­sorting with demons (according to Pope Innocent VIII, 1484): “demons,” in this case, would mean Albigensian, Petrobrusian, Waldensian, and Cathari Bible believing preachers. The official policy of the Papal See was that witches should be burned to death.73 No suc­cessor to Pope Innocent (including all twentieth century popes—Paul VI, John Paul II, et al.) has ever expressed any regret over Pope Innocent’s bull consigning thousands of men and women to bonfires; nor has the Catholic Inquisitor’s official book on how to torture and burn anti-Catholics (Malleus Maleficarium) ever been consigned to any Catholic list of “forbidden books” (the Index). Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is on the Index of forbidden books. This well illustrates the real moral character and ethical standards of the popes, who spend so much time talking about peace, blessing people, and smiling for the camera.

From the highest position in the Alexandrian Cult at the University of Cologne came The Witches’ Hammer (1486), which we have men­tioned earlier. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are appealed to in this work, written to show that witches exist and that they should be burned. Sabbats, night riding, black cats, succubi and incubi, sex orgies, ridi­culing the “sacraments,” stepping on the cross, killing unbaptized babies, etc.—the standard stock and trade found in all encyclopedias on demonology—were the charges brought against ANY Christian who objected to the cannibal mass or infant sprinkling.

The Vaudois (Valdenses, etc.) had to be tortured until they confessed that they had done “homage to the devil.” Naturally, Cathari all had to be involved with witchcraft, otherwise why wouldn’t they believe that a Christian should swallow a dead corpse every Sunday morning?74 In Brincon, France, 110 women and 57 men were burned or drowned for being “witches.” Between 1481 and 1486 more than forty-five were burned at the stake in Germany. In 1545 thirty-four women were burned or quartered in Geneva. In Louis of Palermo’s work (The Origin and Progress of the Inquisition) he states that 30,000 people were slain between 1447 and 1597. All Bible believing Christians who didn t con­fess immediately to having had intercourse with demons or the devil were tortured until they did confess to such practices. As late as 1628 (Bamberg, Germany) people were being tortured to within an inch of their life in order to get them to lie.75

In the thinking of the demon possessed popes and archbishops and many demon possessed priests and monks, such terms as “witchcraft,” “demonology,” “heretic,” “heathen,” “sorcery,” etc., were Christian and Biblical terms describing anyone who objected to Roman Catholicism or who criticized Roman Catholicism or who ridiculed Roman Cathol­icism or who pointed out the depraved and godless nature of Roman Catholicism. Bible believers were to be treated as “witches” or here­tics (same punishment for both) if, at any time, they went by the BOOK instead of the banshee (Webster: “a female demon spirit whose appear­ance or wailing warns a family of approaching DEATH”).

Nor has Rome changed her principles, goals, aims, or attitudes (see Vol. II). It is only the temporary “lull in the action” that prevents the popes from murdering every Bible believer in the United States and England. With fifteen hundred years experience in political maneuvering, no pope is going to issue the orders for a nationwide massacre or allow one to be ordered by his members unless it can be safely carried out (chapter 13, note 58, and chapter 18, note 61). Not even the Communists were that dumb when they began annihilating every Bible believing pas­tor and church in Russia, Rumania, and Bulgaria. The popes are not as dumb as they look; why expose yourself when you have Catholics like Hitler, Castro, and Napoleon (Vol. II) who can get rid of whole anti-Catholic populations for you?

The psychotic madman St. Liguori76 said that there is more certainty of a Christian doing the will of God by “obedience to his superiors than by obedience to Jesus Christ, should He appear in person and give His commands.” Two authorities. The fanatical “saint” goes on by saying that it is impossible for any Catholic to go to hell if he obeys his superiors in the hierarchy.77 The ominous overtones of this are that if a “superior” orders the Catholic to murder someone it is perfectly all right because “the priest’s power surpasses all the powers of heaven and earth, second only to the ineffable dignity of the Mother of God.”78 This puts the priest above Jesus Christ in power (Matt. 28:18) and above Satan in power (Luke 4:5-6). Incredibly, this deluded bunch of pagan fanatics appealed to Gregory Nazianzen and Clement of Alexandria (chapter 5) for their authority since it could be found nowhere in any Bible from cover to cover. Clement had attributed to priests the role of “redeemer,” and the Catholic John Eudes says that the priests are “visible GODS in the world” and further that “a priest is a God who makes gods."19

The Bible has some interesting comments to make on such sacrile­gious reviling (2 Cor. 4:4; Ps. 82:1, 6; Gen. 6:1-6; Acts 14:11).

Not having a Bible, or ignoring the Bible they had, or being unable to understand it when they read it, the Catholic priests had to abide by Clement of Alexandria and his deceived adherents in the Cult. (It would be like a modern, young minister abiding by A.T. Robertson or Kenneth Wuest since he couldn’t understand the Bible in his own language: AV 1611.)

The worst pope the Catholic church ever had, according to their own writers, followed the “rebirth of culture” (the Renaissance). He was Alexander VI (1492-1503), who had many illegitimate children by several women and made his eighteen year old son (Caesar) an arch­bishop two weeks after becoming pope.80 Culture, evidently, is not a cure-all for Bible rejecting scholars, if a cure for anything. It is true that there were beneficial results from the Renaissance in northern Europe, however, one must never forget that the reason was not that the culture was any more ’’cultured,” nor that the artists were any more “artistic,” nor that the musicians were any more “musical”: it was the fact that in the north the Renaissance revived an interest among anti- Roman Catholics in the authority of the word of God (see chapter 16, notes 164-166). There does not appear anywhere in the fifteen hundred year history of Roman Catholicism one major Bible student or Bible teacher who doesn’t either leave the church when he becomes proficient in the New Testament or who is not excommunicated by that church. There is something inherent in the New Testament that is so viciously “anti-Catholic” (no matter how many sweet Catholics are still in fel­lowship with the system) and so “heretical” (anti-papal) that those who choose the latter authority cannot remain true to the former: when dual authorities conflict, one has to be abandoned. As a converted priest once said, “The greatest book written against the Roman Catholic church was not written by a converted priest [Bernadino, Luther, Montano, Carrera, Zachello, et al.]; it was written by GOD." The alibi given for rejecting this Book is that “there are many fine Christian people who are Catholics,” or “I know of several good nuns who love the Lord,” or “You can’t deny that there are many good people who sin­cerely believe,” etc.

When humans worship humans, humanism replaces the first commandment.

Emotional and sentimental feelings about “mankind” (the second commandment perverted), when used as an alibi for sinning against God, always results in a system (Fascism, Communism, Socialism, humanism, Catholicism) that winds up killing, imprisoning, and torturing man­kind” (see The Sure Word of Prophecy, 1969). St. Francis of Assisi,

Catherine of Siena, and other tender souls were wasting their time and the Lord’s time staying in a communion devoted to the extermination of every Bible believing Christian in both hemispheres. The Lord’s com­mandment was clear (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 4:4). Goodness and sweetness (Gen. 3:6) are just as deadly as badness and roughness; they are more deadly (Rom. 16:18), for they are deceptive. A good, sweet “Christian” who corrects the Bible (Custer, Neal, Panosian, Hort, Afman, Harris, MacRae, Robertson, Machen, Miller, Warfield) is ten times as deadly as a rough speaking infidel who denies it.

The Renaissance ends with a massive return to Grecian and Roman paganism. The official representative of religious belief, the self­confessed final authority in all matters of art, religion, literature, music, politics, and conduct is still Unholy Mother Whore (Rev. 17).

Rome never changes.


Replacing the New ASV With the King James Bible

“And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a BOOK...And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the BOOK...And Hilkiah delivered the BOOK to Shaphan. And Shaphan carried the BOOK to the king...And Shaphan read it before the king.”

2 Chronicles 34:14-18

If the title of the chapter seems a little farfetched or out of place in a 1500 A.D. setting, let the reader carefully examine what is about to follow and compare it with the documented facts of history already given in chapter three. Nothing has been worded incorrectly. The New ASV (as its grossly corrupt counterparts: the NIV of 1978 and the ASV of 1901) is the American form of Origen's Alexandrian text, used by Jerome (400 A.D.) and the National Council of Churches (see Vol. II) in America (RSVand New RSV). This Origenistic-Eusebian-Constantine text1 was the official book of the Dark Ages popes. It was the “bible” for the outfit which history has so vividly described between 500-1500 A.D. The Dark Ages began with the adoption of that text. All attempts by Dollinger, Newman, Schaff, LaGarde, Latourette, Mosheim, and others to ascribe that sudden blackout of truth from the scene to “bar­barian invasions,” “splits in the empire,” and “the feudal system” is wasted time and effort, for there is no recovery from this blackout until the Origenistic-Eusebian-Constantine text of Jerome2 is replaced with theAntiochan-Waldensian-SyriantextofSt. Pat, Columba, Chryso­stom, and the Albigenses.3 The barbarian invasions stopped, but the blackout continued; all of Europe was united during the crusades, but the blackout continued. You can’t blame a spiritual blackout of Biblical

truth on “the times” or the “systems.” More is involved than that: someone has taken your Bible away from you. The accidental conjunction of a spiritual blackout with the Greek New Testament text of the New ASV (1960-1980), with another accidental conjunction of a worldwide revival associated with the Greek text of the King James Bible, is a little too “accidental” to be an accident. (As Dave Gardner once said, “it must have been premeditated carelessness.”)

Granted that the printing press helped the dissemination of the truth, it would be granting too much glory to say that the press was the decisive factor in revival, for the modern printing press has probably put out more lies, more distortions of the truth, and more filth in the twentieth century than the popes put out in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries. The dissemination of literature is a double-headed Janus, as are also radio and television. It depends upon what is put out by whom. In the Philadelphia period now before us (1500-1900), it is the pure, unadul­terated word of God (Rev. 3:8) that is being put out by a church that kept that word (Rev. 3:8). Not having a Bible as a guideline for church history, Philip Schaff goes by the whole operation like a sleepwalker and winds up with Constantine correcting the true text with the Origenistic-Eusebian text.4 So did all the popes.5 Erasmus’s Greek text (1522) is the Greek text (with slight variations by Stephanus, Elzevir, Colinaeus, and Beza) that the Catholic church has never approved of and will never approve. They have already officially commended Bob Jones University and Pensacola Christian College for their toleration of the Roman Catholic Bible, for all Catholics can heartily recommend the Greek text of Nestle (Aland and Metzger) used for the ASV, New ASV, and NIV, since it is the text for their own bibles (Jerusalem, Amer­ican, etc.).6 This is not a matter of opinion or preference: it has been documented. Any pope would appreciate any Protestant interested in reverencing a “bible” that came from Alexandria, Egypt, and that ush­ered in the Dark Ages, where the popes controlled western civilization.

The Alexandrian Greek readings recommended by the faculty mem­bers at Bob Jones University are in the official Catholic New Testament manuscript kept under lock and key in the Vatican. “Vaticanus” con­tained the readings for deciding what was scriptural and what was not after the Dark Ages were over. It is not until all of the local assemblies and the majority of Christian scholars abandon this text that revival comes (1500-1900). This Alexandrian text has the ban and the curse of God upon it, as witnessed to by the blood of over 15,000,000 Bible believing people (see chapter 14, note 132) who opposed its custodians. This Alexandrian text is guaranteed to confound Bible knowledge and

scriptural understanding wherever it shows up, and history has already made its own defence of such a statement. There has never been a Bib­lical movement (soul winning, evangelism, church building, or mission­ary work of a Biblical nature) connected with this Alexandrian text since the day that Origen promoted it.1

With the Philadelphia church period there comes to the surface a church that had “kept” the word of God (Rev. 3:8). This church cer­tainly had no connections with the Neo-Platonic hogwash taught at Africa’s Most Unusual University (see chapter 5) or the depraved apos­tates (Origen) who taught soul sleep, transmigration of souls, water regeneration, no literal heaven or hell, no physical resurrection, that Genesis 3:1-3 was not literal (see chapter 5, note 11), and that babies could be saved by sprinkling (Cyprian in Carthage, North Africa).8

With Biblical street preachers all over the face of Europe (1330- 1500) the light began to get brighter and brighter. The precious, perse­cuted witnesses who called themselves Waldenses had adopted for their motto “Lux Lucet in Tenebris’’9 (a light shining in darkness). They had rejected every doctrine which could not be verified in the scripture, and now, at last, they were about to be justified for their centuries of “heretical teaching.” Having stated in their “Noble Lesson” that before the Antichrist would come he would be preceded by many Antichrists,10 the Waldenses passed the torch on to others.

Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374) identified Avignon as the seat of the Antichrist.11 Vincent Ferrer (1350-1415) preached against the popes; mass violence accompanied his preaching.12 Writers in England began to say that the pope was the “man of sin” (2 Thess. 2:3). Among these were Sir John Oldcastle (who was burned at the stake), Walter Brute, and John Purvey.13 The Lollards applied the term “Antichrist” to all popes collectively and individually. Three fiery preachers preceded John Huss: Konrad of Waldhausen, Militz, and Matthias of Janow. Militz preached from the book of Revelation.14 Not being content to post a thesis on a door in Germany, Militz raised the ante on Martin Luther by a good sum: he marched into Rome and nailed his notice to the door °f St. Peters Cathedral. His dispatch said that if the Catholic church didn’t repent, the Antichrist was going to come and take it over.15 If this weren’t enough, Militz proceeded to mount the altar at St. Peters and preach. He was imprisoned, but by a miracle of God he escaped and went back to Prague, where he set up a school for preachers.16 He continued to be an insurgent against Unholy Mother Whore till the day of his death.

By now the raw ulcers in the stomach of the Holy Roman Empire were bleeding.

Nicolas of Cusa (1400-1464), a doctor of law, preached in the ver­nacular and wrote a treatise on “LearnedIgnorance, ’’deriding the sober and proud “Schoolmen.”17 John Colet (1466-1519) referred to the fol­lowers of Duns Scotus as “stupid blockheads.”18 People wept, groaned, and fainted under the preaching of John Tauler (1300-1361).19 It was in the middle of this anti-papal uproar in England, the Balkans, southern France, and Germany that a Bible witness stepped out of Florence, Italy, and cried (within throwing distance of Rome): “In the primitive church the chalices were of wood and the prelates of gold...in these days the church hath chalices of gold and prelates of wood.”20

It was our Italian Catholic “heretic” of chapter 15 (notes 56-57).

The prima donnas of the Reformation are so well known to the stu­dents of history that we will not take up a great deal of space in discussing their lives or their works. The biographies of Martin Luther, John Knox, and John Calvin are almost as extensive as the works on Napoleon and Abraham Lincoln (and more recently on Adolph Hitler). We shall confine our notes to the main highlights of their lives; highlights which are in line with the Book that they professed to believe, the Book they confessed to be the “light” for their pathway and the “lamp” for their feet. Neither Luther nor Calvin ever escaped completely from their church-state baby sprinkling systems, and to say that they were entirely scriptural in their dealings with the “brethren” (notes 148-166) would be dishonest. When it came to their understanding of the New Testament local assemblies (chapter 3), they often erred as much doctrinally as their Jesuitical ances­tors. As many have noted, the Reformation reformed nothing; it was an attempt at reformation that obviously miscarried and turned into a revolution. The Roman Catholic church was not (and is not) about to be reformed by God or the Bible, let alone Bible believing Christians (Rev. 2:21).

The important thing to note about the Reformation is that God the Holy Spirit—who wrote the Bible and promised to preserve it (Ps. 12:6-7)—worked with, and used, a text to bring about a worldwide revival that since its recovery has had SEVEN things against it:

1. This text was called “vile" in the nineteenth and twentieth cen­turies by Westcott and Hort, and “corrupt” by Philip Schaff and Bishop Lightfoot.21

2. It was said to be full of errors because it came from “late manu­scripts,” according to the faculty members at Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, Harvard, Bob Jones University,22 Yale, Princeton, Tennessee Temple, Union Theological Seminary, Pensacola Christian College, and Columbia University.

3. It wasn’t based on the “best manuscripts” because anyone knows that a trained body of professional scribes in a university (see chapter 5) would do a better job of transcribing than a bunch of street preaching laymen (chapter 14, note 76) who were being murdered for their preaching.

4. This text was condemned by every pope in the history of the church from the time of Augustine till the time of President Carter (400-1980 A.D.).

5. It contained seven thousand changes from the “best and oldest manuscripts,” therefore, it had to be altered at least 5,800 times in the New Testament to become a "pure text” for the /1SK, RV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, IV, and NIV.23

6. Translations from this text were burned by the Papists as soon as they were found anywhere.24

7. No recognized, qualified “scholar” in the eighteenth or nine­teenth centuries recommended it, not even if he was “godly.”

With these odds against it, this Greek text was translated into 1,600 languages with 900,000,000 copies of it in the English language alone (1611-1980). The English translation built the British Empire and the republic of America, and it determined the thinking and planning of the founding fathers of the United States of America when they framed the Constitution. It also brought about the evangelical conversion of over 40,000,000 sinners to Jesus Christ (not some “church”) under the ministries of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Beza, Wesley, Edwards, White- field, Torrey, Moody, Sunday, Finney, Spurgeon, Norris, Jones, DeHaan, Brainerd, Moorhouse, Ham, Scofield, McCheyne, Haldane, and others. Its acceptance (albeit its 5800-7000 errors!) by Bible believ­ing Christians brought about the Philadelphia church period (1500-1900): its rejection by Bible believing Christians brought in the Laodicean period of church apostasy (1900-1990). The men who led in this apostasy were the teachers and faculty members of Conservative and Fundamentalist colleges, universities, and seminaries between 1900 and 1980 (see Vol. H).

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

The background of Luther is well-known. He had a humble, rustic origin and worked his way through school at Eisenach, Germany, by singing on the streets.25 The material on Martin Luther is so voluminous that it approaches the work done by secular writers of the person and teachings of Christ. Pope Leo X called him “a drunken German”;26 Peter Moselanus said he was “polite, clever, fresh, cheerful, at

ease...”;27 Jerome Aleander called Luther a “Fool,” “Dog,” and “Rib­ald”;28 and Cajetan, the Papist emissary, described him as “a deep-eyed German beast.”29

Luther was outlawed by the church and state, condemned by the pope, the emperor, and the universities, and was cast out of human soci­ety to be left exposed to a violent death. Schaff says that his famous Thesis was strongly assailed by all the champions of scholastic theology and traditional orthodoxy,30 that is, by all intelligent, educated, religious Roman Catholics. The appellation “popular preacher” was his as well. Heinrich Heine, a German Jewish writer, says of Luther: “He was a dreamy mystic and a practical man of action.... A cold stickler for words and an inspired, divinely intoxicated prophet.... Full of the most awful fear of God...full of consecration to the Holy Spirit...a complete man; I might say ‘an absolute man.’ ”31

In answer to anyone who might be seeking for the cause of the upheaval that followed in his tracks, Luther said: “I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s word, otherwise, I did nothing... The word did it all." “Do not think,” he said at another time, “that the Gospel can be advanced without tumult, trouble, and uproar.”32 “Dost thou hear this, O Pope! Not the most holy, but the most sinful! Would that God would hurl thy chair headlong from heaven and cast it down into the abyss of hell! Who gave you the power to exalt yourself above God? O Lord Christ! Look down upon this.... Let the Day of Judgment come and destroy the devil’s liar at Rome! If this is not Antichrist, I do not know what it is!"33

There is no doubt as to Luther’s views on Antichrist, the famous eschatological subject of pre-Reformation times. Luther was even Pre­millennial in his exposition of the second chapter of Daniel;34 but prac­tically speaking he was A-millennial, believing in a general resurrection and final judgment at the Second Advent.35

As a practical theologian Luther excelled all men of his day. He had full command over the vocabulary of his times. He used common sense, irony, vituperation, and abuse, resorting at times to coarse and vulgar expressions which even in that age offended men of culture and taste and set “a bad example for his admirers.”36 Luther developed his theology before the eyes of the public. Schaff says he had a genial heart but a violent temper.37 He could express the deepest thought in the clearest and strongest language, and he had abundant resources of juicy and forcible epithets which he used constantly. He used the proof­text method to a large extent in preaching,38 and his translation of the scripture is a landmark in the history of theology, education, and lanauaee alike.

Luther naturally approached the matter of translation from the “grammatico historico” standpoint instead of the allegorical; that is, he adhered to the principles of the Antiochan school of Syria (see chapter 3) instead of the principles of the Alexandrian school in Egypt (see chap­ter 5).39 “Scripture itself is its own best interpreter,” according to Luther.40 He felt that scripture alone “should reign”— sola scriptura. He spoke of the Bible as “the Holy Spirit’s own peculiar book” with God “in every syllable.”41 W. Schwarz, of the University College in London, states that Luther’s approach to translating might rightly be called “inspirational” or “inspired.”42 By this he did not mean verbal, plenary inspiration of a divine nature, but he did mean that Luther was conscious of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power in handling every word of his translating work. This is the position we take on the AV of 1611; both that Bible and Luther’s came from the Received Text of Syria in Antioch.

Luther, unlike Jerome and Origen, approached the scriptures UN­CRITICALLY and stated that the true Christian pilgrimage was not to Rome or Jerusalem but to the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Gospels.43 Luther read the New Testament in the light of the Pauline epistles,™ exactly as the ancient heretics had done (the Paulicians, chapter 12, notes 89-97). The thing that distinguishes Luther’s translation from such trash as the New ASV, the ASV, the NIV, the RSV, the New RSV, and the NEB is the feature of INSPIRATION.45 Luther relies on the Holy Spirit in translating and seeks to put Jesus Christ at the center of every passage and verse he handles. Reumann gets so full of his subject in discussing Luther’s prowess as a translator that the Pauline Obsession (see preface) comes blindly through his work and he (Reumann) classifies LUTHER with PHILO and AUGUSTINE!™ Luther would no more con­sult the Catholic church for her opinion about a doctrine than he would a Mohammedan: Augustine would not even believe on Christ unless told to do it by the “Catholic church” (chapter 7, notes 59-70). Further­more, Luther held the Septuagint translators to be falsifiers of the truth and never through for a moment that the LXX was “inspired.”47

Luther’s German Receptus is the first complete Bible translation from the original languages into a modern vernacular language of Europe. Low German translations were made of it. A Dutch New Testament from Luther’s was published in 1523. The Danish New Tes­tament of 1524 was based on Luther’s work. The Swedish New Testa­ment by Olaus Petri came from Luther, as Olaus had attended Luther’s lectures at Wittenburg.48 The Icelandic New Testament (1540) borrowed much from Luther. A Hebrew New Testament for missionary work

among the Jews and a Bible in Slovenian (Yugoslavia, 1584) came from Luther’s Receptus, plus a Croatian New Testament (1562) and a Hun­garian New Testament (1541).

Roland Bainton has rightly said that nearly every German will own up to the fact that the translation by Luther is good German because “that is the way in which a German would speak,’’ when the truth of the matter is that nearly every German—Catholics included—has been reared on Luther’s German version of the Bible.49 They speak the way they speak because their language was given to them by Martin Luther. "Hoch Deutsch’’ is the German of Martin Luther, and he put it into his Bible by rambling around the fishing docks, the marketplaces, the street corners, and the shops, picking up the expressions of his own people. When he was criticized for being so coarse and common in his approach, one of his followers told the Catholics that they were a bunch of subtle fools for not knowing that wives, maidens, maids, students, handworkers, tailors, bakers, shoemakers, and knights were getting to know the Bible better than all of the professors in the Catholic schools of Paris and Cologne and all of the Papists in the world.50 This is a commonplace truth of history: there were children (10-14 years old) in Sunday school of the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas (1920-1940), who knew the Bible better than J. Gresham Machen, Ben­jamin Warfield, Dr. A. T. Robertson, Philip Mauro, and Robert Dick Wilson (see Vol. II).

Providence used Luther’s violent temper as an instrument to com­plete the battering process against the papal system begun many years earlier. He graciously addressed Pope Paul III as “Your Hellishness,” and again as “Most Hellish Father.”51 If the Bible was tough on Rome,52 Luther was in agreement with it:

“The court of Rome is more corrupt than Babylon or Sodom... the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell...so that not even Antichrist if he were to come could devise any addition to its wickedness.”53

Luther’s strong suit was his preaching, not his theology.

At Erfurt, on the way to the Diet of Worms, his preaching “melted the hearts as the vernal sun melts the snow...neither Demosthenes nor Cicero nor Paul so stirred their audiences as Luther’s sermon.”54 Luther preached in two languages and had the audacity to publicly warn the emperor of judgment in the midst of a trial where his (Luther’s) ortho­doxy was at stake! Luther was absolutely without fear in the face ot all opponents, ecclesiastical or political. He roared against Henry VIII. “he openly and deliberately lies...now that damnable rottenness and

worm deliberately and consciously concocts lies against the majesty of my King in heaven. Granted that he is the defender of the church, yet it is of the purple-clad harlot, drunken and mother of abominations. ”35 “The papacy is the most pestilential abomination of Prince Satan that has ever or ever shall be... the fire and fury of silly asses and Thomist wine....But let those swine come on and burn me if they dare. Here I am and I will wait for them, and my ashes alone, having been cast after my death into a thousand seas, will come back and persecute and harass this abominable crowd.’’56

Luther did not underestimate the moral character of Catholics.

In contrasting Luther and Melanchthon, Schaff has well said that Luther was a man of war, Melanchthon a man of peace. Luther’s writings smell of powder; “his words are battles,” and he “overwhelms his opponents with a roaring cannonade of argument, eloquence, passion, and abuse.”57 Luther’s Demonology is markedly strong. His attitude toward the inspiration of scripture is still a current topic of theological debate (1900-1970) among Reformed theologians and the Neo-orthodox; but, practically speaking, Martin staked his very life on the Old and New Testaments. For example: “What God says is true whether my senses corroborate it or not...though I do not fully comprehend it....I shall know it all in the life to come.”58

Luther was not really a Catholic: he was a Bible believer.

“I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God; I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience.”59 Luther’s conscience had been brought into submission to a Syrian-Antiochan Greek text of the Holy Bible: every one of his opponents had submitted his conscience to a depraved egomaniac in possession of an Alexandrian text from Africa.

Luther’s preaching against unfaithful preachers is as contempora­neous as though written yesterday morning.60 He combined exposition with application in his preaching. He abolished indulgences in his own sphere of influence, rejected five sacraments and other forms of ritual, omitted the mass, and has three services on Sunday with weekly com­munion. He lived an