Latest Post/s

Friday, August 01, 2014


Antichrist an enemy under a mask.  ( CHAPTER III of the Book The Papacy Is The Antichrist By Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. )

In order to introduce ourselves to our subject, we have taken it for granted that the system described by Paul in the passage we have just quoted is the papacy.  This is the thing to be established.  We now proceed to prove this, and provided we shall show on good and conclusive grounds that the system depicted by Paul is the Roman apostacy, and that this is the same system which Daniel and John have portrayed under symbolic imagery, it will follow that one who admits the Bible to be the Word of God, and that Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, must believe that the Papacy –that is, the Roman apostacy –is the Antichrist of Scripture.

This is not point of mere speculation.  It is a question that has attendant upon it great practical issues.  This inquiry has for its object the ascertainment of the true meaning of an important part of the Word of God, even the better half of its prophecies.  Moreover, on this question must rest the verdict we are to pronounce on that society which calls itself “the church,” as also the revelations in which we are to stand to it.  And on it, too, must depend whether we shall abandon or whether we shall continue to occupy the ground which we have been accustomed to regard as our divine central position in our war with Popery; or, rather, whether we ought not to end this war, and confess that we have been fighting all along under a mistake.

Who is Antichrist?  It will help us to the right answer to this question if we shall first determine, What is Antichrist?  Antichrist is an enemy who makes war with the Son of God.  Of that there is no doubt.  But what is the form of this war, and under what character does Antichrist carry it on?  Does he wage it openly, or does he fight it under a mask? Does he take the field as an open rebel and a declared foe, or does he come as a friendly adherent who professes to bring support and help to the cause which, in reality, he seeks to undermine and destroy?  To determine this point, let us look at the meaning of the word Antichrist as employed in Scripture.

The reader sees that the term is a composite one, being made up of two words anti and Christ.  The name is one of new formation; being compounded, it would seem, for this very enemy, and by its etymology expressing more exactly and perfectly his character than any older word could.  The precise question now before us is this –What is the precise sense of anti in this connection?  Does it designate an enemy who says openly and truly, “I am against Christ.”  Or does it designate one who says plausibly, yet falsely, “I am for Christ.”  Which?  To determine this, let us look at the force given to this prefix by writers in both classic literature and Holy Scripture.  First, the old classic writers.  By these the preposition anti is often employed to designate a substitute.  This is, in fact, a very common use of it in the classic writers.  For instance, anti-basileus, he who is the locum tenens of a king, or as we now should say viceroy: anti having in this case the force of the English term vice. He who filled the place of consul was antihupatos, pro-counsul. He who took the place of an absent guest at a feast was styled antideipnos.  The preposition is used in this sense of the great Substitute Himself.  Christ is said to have given Himself as an antilutron, a ransom in the stead of all. Classic usage does not require us to give only one sense to this word, and restrict it to one who seeks openly, and by force, to seat himself in the place of another, and by violent usurpation bring that other’s authority to an end.  We are at liberty to apply it to one who steals into the office of another under the mask of friendship; and while professing to uphold his interest, labours to destroy them.  This leaves us free to turn to the use of the word in Scripture. The Antichrist comes first into view in our Lord’s discourse recorded in
Matt.xxiv. 24, and Mark xiii. 22.  “For false Christs (pseudoxristos) and false prophets shall arise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.’  Our Lord does not, indeed, use the word Antichrist, but what is almost its synonym pseudo-Christ.  Nevertheless, the persons whose coming He foretells are in the line of Antichrist; they belong to the same family, and their grand characteristic is deception.  Manifestly, they are not open enemies, but pretended friends; they are “false Christs and false prophets,” and as such are forerunners of that great Antichrist who is to succeed them, and in whom they are to find their fuller development and final  consummation.  They shall seek by “signs and wonders,” false, of course, to obscure the glory of Christ’s true miracles, to weaken the evidence of His Messiahship arising there from, and to draw men away from Him, and after themselves.

The other place in the New Testament in which reference is made to Antichrist is the 1st and 2nd Epistles of John.  The idea which John presents of the Antichrist is quite in harmony with that of our Lord.  John looks for him in the guise of a Deceiver.  “Little children,” says John (1st Epistle ii. 18),  “it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists.”  After this announcement of
a special and great Antichrist, to follow in the wake of those minor Antichrists that were already arrived, and were urging their claims on the attention of the world, he comes to look more closely at the giant who was to stand up after these dwarfs had passed away.  He notes prominently one characteristic of him, and it is his falsehood. Antichrist, says John, is to be a liar (verse 22).  “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” “St John’s words,” says Archbishop Trench, “seem to me decisive on the matter, that resistance to, and defiance of, Christ, not the false assumption if his character and offices, is the essential mark of Antichrist.” (Synonyms of the New Testament, by R.C. Trench, B.D., p.120  Cambridge and London, 1854) Such is Dr Trench’s opinion; but he gives no grounds for it, and we are unable to imagine any.  We draw the exactly opposite conclusion from the apostle’s words, even that the “false assumption of His character and offices” is an essential mark of Antichrist.  “He is a liar,” says John.  But if he comes boldly and truthfully avowing himself the enemy of Christ, how is he a liar?  If he avows, without concealment, his impious design of overthrowing Christ, with what truth can he be spoken of as a deceiver?  But such is the character plainly ascribed to him by John (2nd epistle, verse 7): -“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.  This is a deceiver and an Antichrist.”  Plainly the exegesis, or rather supposition, of Dr Trench is inadmissible. Dr Chalmers had no difficulty in seeing the Roman system in the “apostacy” predicted by Paul.  We find him saying in his Scripture Readings: -“Save us, O Lord, from falling away, lest we share in the perdition that waiteth on the great apostacy.  We  hold the usurpation of Rome to be evidently pointed at, and therefore let us maintain our distance, and keep up our resolute protest against its great abominations.” (Dr Chalmers’
Sabbath Scripture Readings, vol. I., p.310. Edinburgh, 1848.)

Archbishop Trench was misled, it may be, by the strength of the term deny. “He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.”  But he who does not confess when he is called to do so, denies.  Such is the use of the word in these applications all through the New Testament.  Such is the use John makes of it in this very passage: -“for many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh.”  It is clear that Antichrist, as depicted by our Lord and by His Apostle John, is to wear a mask, and to profess one thing and act another.  He is to enter the church as Judas entered the garden –professedly to kiss his Master, but in reality to betray Him.  He is to come with words of peace in his mouth but war in his heart.  He is to be a counterfeit Christ –Christ’s likeness stamped on base metal.  He is to be an imitation of Christ, -a close, clever, and astute imitation, which will deceive the world for ages, those only excepted who, taught by the Holy Spirit, shall be able to see through the disguise and detect the enemy under the mask of the friend.

Extracted from the Book entitled The Papacy Is The Antichrist By Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. AUTHOR OF “HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM,” “HISTORY OF THE SCOTISH NATION,” ETC. You can DOWNLOAD and READ the eBOOK Here for FREE in DOC format or PDF Format HERE.

The Reformers Identification of the Anti-Christ.

Posted on July 8, 2014 in Rev.17-Meet the Harlots

Pope Francis has been meeting with everyone from Muslims to Evangelicals. The Pope has in the last few months alone meet with President Obama, The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, President Vladamir Putin, various Jewish and Muslim leaders, the head of the Disciples of Christ, Kenneth Copeland and James Robinson. The Pope is working hard to bring together everyone into a since religion under Rome. However, Protestants need to be especially weary of the Pope as our forefathers taught unanimously that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ:

Martin Luther:
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” -Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197

“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist… personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to the Antichrist.” -To the German Nobility, pg 256

William Tyndale:
`Mystery, Babylon the Great,’ written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church of Rome.”

Nicolaus Von Amsdorf:
“He (the antichrist) will be revealed and come to naught before the last day, so that every man shall comprehend and recognize that the pope is the real, true antichrist and not the vicar of Christ … Therefore those who consider the pope and his bishops as Christian shepherds and bishops are deeply in error, but even more are those who believe the the Turk (ISLAM) is the antichrist. Because the Turk (ISLAM) rules outside of the church and does not sit in the holy place, nor does he seek to bear the name of Christ, but is an open antagonist of Christ and His church. This does not need to be revealed, but it is clear and evident because he persecutes Christians openly and not as the pope does, secretly under the form of Godliness.” -Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Furnemliche und gewisse Zeichen, sig.A2r.,v.

John Knox:
Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks.” -John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, p.65

John Calvin (although we do not endorse his doctrines, he agreed with the other reformers that the Papacy was the Anti-Christ:

“Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” -Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149

Thomas Cranmer:
“Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” -Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7

King James I:
“…Popery is in deed The mysterie of iniquitie…” -1605 speech to parliament “Rome is the Seat of the Antichrist.” -A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches

The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):
“The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.” -1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.” -1646 Westminster Confession of Faith

John Wesley:
“… In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped – Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, “Most Holy Lord,” or, “Most Holy Father.” So that he sitteth – Enthroned. In the temple of God – Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God – Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” -John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament, p.216

Charles Spurgeon:
“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”

Prior to the reformation others cited the Papacy as the Anti-Christ as well. These include Dante Alighieri c.1310, Michael of Cesena c. 1331, Johannes de Rupescissa c.1345, Francesco Petrarch c. 1350, John Milicz c. 1367, John Wycliffe c. 1379, Mattias of Janow c.1388, R. Wimbledon c. 1389, John Purvey c. 1390, Walter Brute c. 1393, John Huss c. 1412 and Girolamo Savonarola c. 1497.

Other Post-Reformation People and Ministers who believed that the Papacy was the Anti-Christ:
George Downham c.1603
George Pacard c. 1604
Hugh Broughton c. 1607
Andress Holwig c. 1612
Mattias Hoe c.1618
Daniel Cramer c. 1618
Joseph Mede c. 1631
Johannes Gerhard c.1643
Thomas Goodwin c.165
Thomas Goodwin c.1654
JohnTilligghast c.1655
Henry More c.1664
William Sherwin c.1670
Johann H. Alsted c. 1681
Thomas Beverley c. 1684
Pierre Jurieu c.1687
Drue Cressener c. 1689
William Lowth c. 1700
Johannes Cocceius c.1701
Robert Fleming Jr. c.1701
Georg her. Giblehr c.1702
Daniel Whitby c. 1703
William Whiston c.1706
Heinrich Horch c. 1712
Charles Daubux c. 1720
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Pyle c.1735
Johann Bengel c. 1740
Berienberg Bible c. 1743
John Willison c.1745
Thomas Newton c.1754
John Gill c. 1758
Johann Petri c. 1768
Hans Wood c.1787
James Becheno c.1793
Joseph Priestly c.1794
George Bell c.1795
Christian G. Thube c.1796
David Simpson c.1797
Edward King c. 1798
Joseph Galloway c.1798
Richard Valpy c. 1798
Jean G. de la Flechers c.1798
Michael de Semlyen:
“Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.” -Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome

Recent identification of the Papacy as the Anti-Christ:South Atlantic Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, March 25, 2000:THE THREAT OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

Whereas: The mass media has captivated the world with the activities of Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Holy Land in March 2000; and

Whereas: The Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation have signed, in October, 1999 a joint declaration of accord on the doctrine of justification (only the synods of Wisconsin and Missouri dissented); and

Whereas: In the middle of February, 200, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat met with Pope John Paul II at the vatican to sign an agreement regarding the future of Jerusalem that warned Israel against any unilateral decision affecting Jerusalem; and
Whereas: Bob Jones University has been unjustly slandered for anti-catholic bias by Senators McCain, Torricelli, Hollings and the liberal mass media; and

Whereas: The House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress has just appointed a Roman Catholic priest as its chaplain for the first time, March 23, 2000; and

Whereas: Pope John Paul II has declared the year 2000 a “Great Jubilee Year” for Roman Catholics that establishes the restoration of indulgences, THE VERY ISSUE THAT PROMPTED MARTIN LUTHER TO DRAFT THE 95 THESES IN OCTOBER OF 1517: papal spokesman Timothy Shugrue states, “The indulgence is one of the spiritual privleges extended during Jubilee. It is a way of applying the merits of the good deeds of the saints and the Virgin Mary and CHrist Himself to the rest of us.”;

Therefore: The South Atlantic Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church, at its spring meeting in the Bible Presbyterian Church of Charlotte, N.C., March 25, 2000, resolves and warns the Roman Catholic Church, Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth (Rev 17:5) constitutes the greatest threat to fundamental Christianity in the 21st century! The Roman Catholic Church has long since forsaken the Bible alone, Grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. There should be no confraternity with this apostate church in ministerial associations, community easter sunrise services, Thanksgiving services, mass evangelism or common social endeavors. We admonish devout believers to lovingly and firmly win Roman Catholics to Christ and urge new converts to obey Rev. 18:4, “And I heard a another voice from heaven, saying, come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sin, and that ye recieve not her plagues.”

Roman Catholic Sources on the Papacy as the Anti-Christ:
“There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be divers thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders, to doubt, yea even agree with those heretics which will cause My order to divide, then will there be such universal dissentions and persecutions that if these days were not shortened even the elect would be lost” -St.Francis of Assisi

“Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” -St.Francis of Assisi

“Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ” -Fr. Sylvester Berry (1927)

“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”-Prophecy of supposed apparition of Mary, Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846

“…St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope [as the Beast of the Apocalypse].” -Catholic Encyclopedia on St.Bernard and this description of the Anti-Christ

“Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” -Bl. Joachim (d. 1202)
Antichrist…Many believe in a demonical incarnation—this will not be so—but he will be utterly possessed…His doctrine as apparent contradiction of no religion, yet a new religion…He has an attending pontiff, so separating regal and prophetic office -Frederick William Faber (died 1863)

I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was admitted in it in order to be united and to have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…I saw again a new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… – Anna-Katarina Emmerick(19th century), Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement, 1973, pp. 66, 71, 116

They wanted to make a new Church, a Church of human manufacture, but God had other designs…An anti-pope shall be set up in Rome (Yves Dupont, p. 116).

This final false prophet will be a bishop of the church and will lead all religions into becoming one.- Priest O’Connor (20th century), The False Prophet. Living in the Final Generation

How could so many people before and after the reformation be wrong about who the Mother Harlot of Revelation would be? The fact is, the papacy is the Anti-Christ. The Pope today promotes ecumenism as a “dialogue of love” in attempts to bring together all the religions of the world. Francis is using politics and strife between religions as a means of gaining the trust of the world (see Jesuit Oath). If he succeeds, and he will, many Churches will unite under the Pope. In the end all that will occur is the Pope will reunite the Mother Harlot’s offspring back to her, including the Jews. Protestants should allow this to happen to them but remain strong on their own as the true Church of Christ.

Source: Throwback Christianity 

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Roman Catholic view of Marriage is flawed, incomplete and destructive.


A. The Pope only defines two purposes of marriage, leaving out the third in the list below:

Offspring: "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28)
Companionship: "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen 2: 18)

B. The Bible has three purposes of Marriage:

Offspring: "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28)
Companionship: "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen 2: 18)
Sexual satisfaction independent of the desire for children: "because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife", "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" 1 Corinthians 7:1-5,9

I. "Sex on demand":

The Bible teaches sex on demand by either spouse: "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch (have sex with) a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...  "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. " 1 Corinthians 7:1-5,9

What could be more clear? But the Roman Catholic view of marriage cannot allow for this great advice. In short, it is a sin for one either partner to withhold sex when requested. This underscores the fact that the Roman Catholic church is wrong when they refuse to include "satisfaction of sexual appetite" as the third purpose of marriage.

II. Guilt:

Rather than sex being a wonderful communion between husband and wife to fulfill the sexual desire, The Roman Catholic view, if anyone actually listened to it, would make married partners feel guilty and dirty for having sex, for the sole purpose of a "good romp in the hay".

III. Birth Control:

Roman Catholic church has a prohibition against birth control. Such is as anti-Biblical as it is hypocritical. This prohibition is again based upon an incomplete definition of the purpose of marriage. Hypocritically, the Roman Catholic church actually teaches birth control is OK, as long as it involves nothing artificial like condoms, pills etc. The average Roman Catholic married woman is instructed to use the rhythm method where she takes her body temperature to determine the day she ovulates. Then she avoids sex for two days before and after her ovulation day. But this is not only hypocritical double talk, since birth control is the act of having sex without the desire for children, it contradicts the entire foundation upon which the Roman Catholic church forbade birth control in the first place: There are only two purposes of marriage. Since the Pope teaches the only time you can have sex is to make children, then the only time a Catholic woman could have sex, is during her "three fertile days" of the month. The Roman Catholic position on birth control is shown to be silly and outrageous because Catholic "pew dwellers" generally ignore such man made rules from leaders, who themselves are not married. But if a Catholic did follow the teaching of the Pope, then she would use the thermometer to determine when she ovulates and have sex only during that fertile 4 day window.

IV. Prohibition against church leaders marrying is a satanic doctrine:

By ignoring what scripture says about one of the purposes of marriage being to alleviate sexual lust, the Pope has done damage to the institution of marriage. Remember, it wasn't until about 1070 AD that Catholic priests were first officially forbidden to be married. That's 1000 years too late to be part of Bible Christianity.

In fact the Holy Spirit prophesied this apostasy: "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. " 1 Timothy 4:1-3

In fact the Bible specifically commands that Bishops/Elders be married:

"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " 1 Timothy 3:1-7

V. Sexual abuse scandals

Most of the sexual abuse problems within the Catholic church could have been prevented if they had not adopted the false doctrine that church leaders cannot be married. Orthodox leaders have always been allowed to be married and the statistical facts speak for themselves: Sex abuse scandals are dramatically reduced when church leaders are permitted to marry.

Steve Rudd

Self Abuse?

Could you send me some info about the topic of masturbation? I am interested in the biblical approaches to this subject as well as in practical guidance for pastors and Christian workers.

In fact, the Bible never directly addresses the issue of masturbation. Throughout history, most Christians have condemned masturbation on one of several bases, including but not limited to: 1) the sin of Onan; 2) nature; and/or 3) lust. I'll treat each one of these approaches below. 

1. The sin of Onan 
In Genesis 38:7-10 we learn that Judah had a son named Er and a son named Onan. Er was married to Tamar. Because Er was evil, God killed him. Judah then commanded Onan to impregnate Tamar in order to raise up an heir for Er. Onan slept with Tamar, but every time he had sex with her, he spilled his seed on the ground. For this sin, God killed him. 

Many have interpreted this to mean that spilling one's seed in a manner not designed to result in pregnancy is a sin. This is the same argument used against contraception. However, the Bible does not teach that Onan's sin was spilling his seed in and of itself. It was simply the means by which he prevented Tamar's insemination. 

Some (such as the Roman Catholic Church) argue that spilling his seed was the crime for which God killed Onan. They base this on the following facts: 1) God killed Onan for his crime; 2) the punishment for failing to have a child by one's brother's widow was far less than death; 3) the punishment for failing to obey one's father was likewise not death; and 4) death was the appropriate punishment for many other sexual sins which were not designed to inseminate (homosexuality, bestiality, etc.). Based on these facts, many conclude that Onan's sin was not failing to raise up a child to his brother, but rather was engaging in a sexual act not designed to inseminate. Masturbation, sexual intercourse with contraception, oral sex, homosexuality, bestiality, and many other sexual practices fall into this category. The problem with this argument is that it does not sufficiently account for the data. 

First, in the levirate situation, the purpose of sex was specifically to raise up a child to one's brother. In fact, Genesis 38 does not even say that Tamar was Onan's wife, but rather that she was his brother's wife. The only reason that Onan was permitted to lie with her was to get her pregnant. The fact that Onan eagerly engaged in sex with Tamar but refused to give his seed to her indicates that he was in effect committing adultery with her. When the Law was later instituted, adultery was a crime punishable by death (Lev. 20:10). 

Second, the Law contains no statutes condemning or even concerning contraception, masturbation, oral sex, or many other sexual acts not designed to inseminate. If these acts were really so heinous to God that they were punishable by death, it would seem that this should have been important enough to find its way into the Law. 

Third, there is no biblical evidence that the Israelites ever put anyone to death for masturbation, contraception, oral sex, or similar non-adulterous and non-bestial acts not designed to inseminate. In fact, there is no evidence (putting aside the disputed Onan incident) that the Israelites considered these acts wrong at all. 

Fourth, the Law does mention times when a man's seed might be wasted, but never attributes anything worse than ceremonial uncleanness to it (Lev. 15:16-17,32; Deut. 23:10). It even mentions that when a man has a seminal emission he must bathe and wash his clothes (if necessary), and that he is unclean until evening (Lev. 15:16-17). There is no mention of death or punishment, and even no clear description of "seminal emission." Often this is understood to refer to noctural emissions that occur while a man sleeps, but it is possible that it also refers to emissions that occur when a man is awake. If the latter is the case, then the passage would seem to place masturbation on the level of a woman's period, not on the level of sin.

2. Nature 
Some argue that masturbation is wrong on the basis of nature. That is, in a fashion similar to the argument based on Onan's sin, they argue that God did not design the human body and reproductive system to work in this manner, that God's general revelation in nature condemns the practice. This is a tenuous argument at best. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. For example, many human beings learn to masturbate without ever having been taught it or having heard about it. It would seem to be their "natural" impulse. Moreover, human beings are naturally equipped with the necessary body parts to accomplish masturbation (unlike most animals). It could be argued on these bases that it is natural. Moreover, most Protestants reject the idea that what is natural is necessarily what is good -- especially in light of our "sin nature." This is simply a poor ground on which to base the argument against masturbation. 

3. Lust 
This is the argument that has the most going for it. It can generally be argued that acts of masturbation involve the sin of lust. 

Now, we have to be careful to recognize that the sin of lust does not include every instance of sexual arousal or attraction. It is not a sin to be sexually aroused, even by someone to whom you are not yet married (Deut. 21:10-13; Sol. 1:1ff.); it is a sin to revel in being sexually aroused by someone who is married to another, or with whom you only desire fornication (Matt. 5:28). 
So, if an act of masturbation expresses the sin of lust, then that act of masturbation can be condemned as sinful. But this argument cannot condemn acts of masturbation that do not give expression to the sin of lust. For example, a man or woman who masturbates while thinking about his or her spouse would not involve the sin of lust. An act of masturbation motivated by thoughts of one whom a person could rightly hope to marry might also escape the condemnation of this argument. Acts of masturbation performed for physical pleasure apart from any particular thoughts of lust would also escape condemnation by this argument. 

In conclusion, there are some acts of masturbation for which the Bible has no real condemnation. Now, in saying this, we should not downplay the real evil of the sin of lust that is involved in many acts of masturbation. Nevertheless, we should also refrain from condemning what the Bible does not condemn. I would say as gently as possible that while our social inclination and tradition might be to condemn all acts of masturbation, our inclination and tradition might not be entirely biblical on this point. 

I believe that masturbation is probably a near-universal practice, especially among younger males. Many have probably been made to feel that they are in constant sin as a result of their failure to control their behavior by their own will power. This can be very damaging to their understanding of their relationship to God. Rather than rejoicing in him, they feel oppressed, guilty, hypocritical, and dirty. Some even doubt their salvation because God has not freed them from what they consider to be a "besetting sin." Certainly, some of their guilty feelings are based on a proper understanding of the sin of lust, but not all. I think we need to be careful not to damage those individuals who are not caught up in the sin of lust, especially so that we do not drive them to despair and shame that tempt them into real sins of lust. 

Answer by Ra McLaughlin

Is Oral Sex a Sin?

Is oral sex a sin?

Actually, the Bible doesn't specifically address the issue of oral sex. It does differentiate between marriage, heterosexuality, male and female homosexuality, bestiality, and incest, but it really doesn't get into the specific acts that take place within those relationships. 

The Bible literally speaks in terms of "knowing," "uncovering nakedness," "lying with," "adultery," and "immorality" when it refers to sexual relations. It does not describe what particular acts fall into these categories, though it is clear from some of the cases in which these concepts are used that they cannot be limited to vaginal intercourse (e.g. Gen. 19:5; Judg. 19:22; Rom. 1:26-27). Sexual relations are acceptable within the context of marriage, and unacceptable outside that context. 

The Bible seems to assume that people know what it means when it prohibits these types of activities in relationships other than marriage, much like the American public assumed that President Clinton should have known when testifying under oath that "sexual relations" included oral sex (in the fairly recent Monica Lewinski matter). The language in the Bible is flexible, and is intended to cover all types of sexual conduct, not just vaginal intercourse. 

One way to determine what is and what is not appropriate behavior is by looking at the people who are forbidden to engage in acts of "knowing," "uncovering nakedness," "lying with," "adultery," and "immorality." If these terms are limited to vaginal intercourse (and by necessity to sodomy) but allow oral sex, then the Bible does not prohibit oral sex with anyone under any circumstance. If these terms do not cover oral sex, then the Bible does not forbid a father and daughter to engage in oral sex together. If these terms to not cover oral sex, then the Bible does not forbid a son and mother to engage in oral sex together. If these terms do not cover oral sex, then the Bible does not forbid a man to perform oral sex on another man, or a woman to perform oral sex on another woman. 

I would suggest that a rather objective way to tell if something counts as "sexual relations" is to determine whether or not it tends to stimulate the sexual response of orgasm. This is not to say that sexual activity does not take place unless someone has an orgasm. Rather, it is simply to assert that if the activity (such as oral sex) is the sort that tends to bring people to sexual climax, then that activity is clearly sexual in nature. Therefore, the activity falls into the category of sexual relations and is forbidden outside marriage. 

Answer by Ra McLaughlin
Ra McLaughlin is Vice President of Creative Delivery Systems at Third Millennium Ministries.




Is the Bible clear in its teaching on premarital sex? It seems very specific in terms of homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc. But what about premarital sex?


The Bible commonly uses terms such as "knowing," "lying with," "uncovering nakedness," "immorality," and "adultery" to refer to a variety of sexual sins (e.g. Matt. 15:19; Acts 15:20,29; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 9:21). These broad terms tend to include all sorts of different types of sexual activity, including premarital sex, sex between people who are married to others, rape, etc. That fornication is included in these terms is illustrated in many translations which actually use words like "fornication" rather than "immorality" in many passages. For the most part, the biblical writers and their original audiences understood what these terms included, and that premarital sex was prohibited when these broader categories were condemned.

For the sake of comparison, you may recall former U.S. president Bill Clinton claiming that he did not have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Most people in the U.S. believed that Clinton should have known that "oral sex" (in which Clinton and Lewinski engaged) was included in "sexual relations." To be fair, Clinton later admitted that he had "misled" his country by this denial. In the same way that "sexual relations" includes "oral sex" in modern English, "fornication" (a.k.a. premarital sex) was included in the Hebrew and Greek terms for "immorality" and other sexual sin.

There are also explicit teachings in Scripture that indicate to us that premarital sex is a sin. Perhaps the passage that deals with this subject in the most depth is Deuteronomy 22. In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, we find the statutes regarding women who lose their virginity before marriage. When they marry and it is discovered that they are not virgins, they are liable unto death. In verse 21 we are told that the non-virgin's sin is zanah, sometimes translated with the force of committing harlotry, sometimes with the force of being promiscuous. From the context, this law applies to all premarital sex regardless whether or not it involves prostitution. It is possible, however, that in the Israelite mindset prostitution would have been the most likely way for them to have lost their virginity. The verse offers no alternative by which such women might be exonerated, indicating that under no circumstances were they permitted to engage in premarital sex.

Scripture does not explicitly prohibit men from all premarital sex, at least not in statutes that describing fornication specifically. However, it implicitly condemns all male fornication in its other specific prohibitions, and it generally condemns it in all its general condemnations of immorality. Scripture explicitly prohibits married and unmarried men from having sex with anyone else's wife (Lev. 18:20), with betrothed virgins (Deut. 22:23-24), with other men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9), and with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:15-18). The only ones left with whom to have sex are single women who are neither prostitutes nor betrothed. But these women cannot have premarital sex (Deut. 22:13-21); by implication men are forbidden to have sex with them (Matt. 18:7; Luke 17:1-2). 

So, whereas we have no single verse that explicitly says, "All forms of premarital sex are forbidden," we do have many verses that, taken together, demonstrate rather clearly that the Bible teaches precisely this idea. We also have many verses that condemn all sexual immorality in general, and we know from the rest of Scripture that these refer to fornication as well as to other sexual sins.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin

Tuesday, July 29, 2014


Guys.. please watch the Youtube videos below and I hope you will learn from them. It is sad that the world is sick physically because of deceivers who are misleading many people and making money from their deceptions. Thank God He first loved us and made us alive with Christ by raising us from spiritual death. Happy watching! :) Eph 2:1-10 KJV


Revelation 18:23 ...for by Mystery Babylon's sorceries (pharmakeia) were all nations deceived.

Dr. Russell Blaylock illustrates and discusses how the human population is being manipulated into violence and eventually destruction through the use of nutrition or lack thereof. The nutrition manipulation and biological manipulation from national or international Pharma/Food/BioTech companies are degrading and impairing the human cognitive function and intellect. This is deliberate and strategic (as in Agenda 21 or Codex Alimentarious) for the illuminati to keep the human populace suppressed, confused and oppressed. This agenda has been going on for centuries to further the luciferian agenda and profit making scams, all while increasing the prison industrial complex and adding new laws and outlawing naturopathic remedies, in a constant war on the people. Over vaccinations and manditory vaccines are also covered by Dr. Blaylock and how people are being destroyed mentally and physically because of this. He also covers how misleading studies, like those of Soy products funded by illuminati or government owned institutions also have destructive nutrition (collective or individual) to further blindside the people.

It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.- Proverbs 3:8 KJV

"There is not a greater enemy to the fear of the Lord in the heart, than self-conceit of our own wisdom. The prudence and sobriety which religion teaches, tend not only to the health of the soul, but to the health of the body. Worldly wealth is but poor substance, yet, such as it is, we must honour God with it; and those that do good with what they have, shall have more to do more good with. Should the Lord visit us with trials and sickness, let us not forget that the exhortation speaks to us as to children, for our good. We must not faint under an affliction, be it ever so heavy and long, not be driven to despair, or use wrong means for relief. The father corrects the son whom he loves, because he loves him, and desires that he may be wise and good. Afflictions are so far from doing God's children any hurt, that, by the grace of God, they promote their holiness." - Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary Pro. 3:7-12 KJV

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23
Copyright © 2014 Reformed Malaya