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 

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

Introduction:

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
Source: Bible.ca

Self Abuse?

Question
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.

Answer
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

Source:  Thirdmill.org

Is Oral Sex a Sin?

Question
Is oral sex a sin?

Answer
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.

Source: ReformedAnswers.org

FORNICATION

Question

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?

Answer

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

Source:  Thirdmill.org

ILLUMINATI FOOD CONSPIRACY

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

Youtubevid: US JUNK FOOD CONSPIRACY

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

THE PSEUDO-CHRIST OF ROMANISM, ARMINIANISM, THE CULTS AND FALSE RELIGIONS.

The Christ of Arminianism (Freewillism) by Rev. Steven Houck

"Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4-5).

The Bible warns us that in the last days in which we live there will be many false Christs-those who claim to be Christ but who are imposters. Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4-5). We who profess to be Christians must take heed. We must be very careful that we are not deceived. Our calling is to trust, love, and follow the true Christ and Him only. We may have nothing to do with the false Christs who are so numerous in our day.

We know about the Christ of the cults and other religions. He is a good man, a prophet, the first creation of God, a great spirit, a divine idea, or even a god himself. But he is not true and eternal God. He receives his existence from another who is greater than he. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.

We know about the Christ of Roman Catholicism. They profess that He is true God. He suffered and died for the forgiveness of sin. He arose again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. But he is not a complete Savior. The Christ of the Roman Catholics can not save sinners without their own good works and the intercession of priests. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.

There is, however, another false Christ who is much more dangerous than the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism. He has deceived people for many years and he continues to deceive millions. This Christ is so dangerous that, if it were not impossible, he would deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). He is the Christ of Arminianism.

This false Christ is extremely dangerous because in many ways he appears to be the True Christ. They say that he is true God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They say that he died on the cross to save sinners. They even say that he saves by his grace alone, without the work of man. This Christ will have nothing to do with the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism.

But watch out! Be warned! The Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the Bible. Do not be fooled!
The Christ of Arminianism - loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation.

The Christ of the Bible - earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27, John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4)

The Christ of Arminianism - offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come.

The Christ of the Bible - effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40, John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13)

The Christ of Arminianism - can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own "free will." All men have a "free will" by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That "free will" may not be violated by Christ.

The Christ of the Bible - sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man's contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2)

The Christ of Arminianism - died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost.

The Christ of the Bible - died for only God's elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26, Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18)

The Christ of Arminianism - loses many whom he has "saved" because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them "eternal security," as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ.

The Christ of the Bible - preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25)
As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign "free will" of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.

If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign Savior. 

SOURCE: REFORMEDSPOKANE.ORG

SAVING FAITH

Delivered on Lord's Day Morning, March 15, 1874, byb C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington


"Thy faith hath saved thee."—Luke 7:50; and Luke 18:42.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a British
Particular Baptist preacher. Spurgeon
remains highly influential among Christians
 of various denominations, among whom
 he is known as the  "Prince of Preachers".
  - Wikipedia

I do not remember that this expression is found anywhere else in the Word of God. It is found in these two places in the Gospel by Luke, but not in any other Gospel. Luke also gives us in two other places a kindred, and almost identical expression, "Thy faith hath made thee whole." This you will find used in reference to the woman whose issue of blood had been staunched (Luke 8:48), and in connection with that one of the ten lepers who returned to praise the Saviour for the cure he had received (Luke 17:19). You will find the expression, "Thy faith hath made thee whole" once in Matthew and twice in Mark, but you find it twice in Luke, and together therewith the twice repeated words of our text, "Thy faith hath saved thee." Are we wrong in supposing that the long intercourse of Luke with the apostle Paul led him not only to receive the great doctrine of justification by faith which Paul so plainly taught, and to attach to faith that high importance which Paul always did, but also to have a peculiar memory for those expressions which were used by the Saviour, in which faith was manifestly honoured to a very high degree. Albeit Luke would not have written anything which was not true for the sake of maintaining the grand doctrine so clearly taught by the apostle, yet I think his full conviction of it would help to recall to his memory more vividly those words of the Lord Jesus from which it could be more clearly learned or illustrated. Be that as it may, we know that Luke was inspired, and that he has written neither more nor less than what the Saviour actually said, and hence we may be quite sure that the expression, "Thy faith hath saved thee," fell from the Redeemer's lips, and we are bound to accept it as pure unquestionable truth, and we may repeat it ourselves without fear of misleading others, or trenching upon any other truth. I mention this because the other day I heard an earnest friend say that faith did not save us, at which announcement I was rather surprised. The brother, it is true, qualified the expression, and showed that he meant to make it clear that Jesus saved us, and not our own act of faith. I agreed with what he meant, but not with what he said, for he had no right to use an expression which was in flat contradiction to the distinct declaration of the Saviour, "Thy faith hath saved thee." We are not to strain any expression to make it mean more than the speaker intended, and it is well to guard words from being misunderstood; but on the other hand, we may not quite go so far as absolutely to negative a declaration of the Lord himself, however we may mean to qualify it. It is to be qualified if you like, but it is not to be contradicted, for there it stands, "Thy faith hath saved thee." Now we shall this morning, by God's help, inquire what was it that saved the two persons whose history will come before us? It was their faith. Our second inquiry will be what kind of faith was it which saved them? and then thirdly, what does this teach us in reference to faith?

    I. WHAT WAS IT THAT SAVED the two persons whose history we are about to consider?
    In the penitent woman's case, her great sins were forgiven her and she became a woman of extraordinary love: she loved much, for she had much forgiven. I feel, in thinking of her, something like an eminent father of the church who said, "This narrative is not one which I can well preach upon; I had far rather weep over it in secret." That woman's tears, that woman's unbraided tresses wiping the Saviour's feet, her coming so near to her Lord in such company, facing such proud cavillers, with such fond and resolute intent of doing honour to Jesus; verily, among those that have loved the Saviour, there hath not lived a greater than this woman who was a sinner. Yet for all that Jesus did not say to her, "Thy love hath saved thee." Love is a golden apple of the tree of which faith is the root, and the Saviour took care not to ascribe to the fruit that which belongs only to the root. This loving woman was also right notable for her repentance. Mark ye well those tears. Those were no tears of sentimental emotion, but a rain of holy heart-sorrow for sin. She had been a sinner and she knew it; she remembered well her multitude of iniquities, and she felt each sin deserved a tear, and there she stood weeping herself away, because she had offended her dear Lord. Yet it is not said, "Thy repentance hath saved thee." Her being saved caused her repentance, but repentance did not save her. Sorrow for sin is an early token of grace within the heart, yet it is nowhere said, "Thy sorrow for sin hath saved thee." She was a woman of great humility. She came behind the Lord and washed his feet, as though she felt herself only able to be a menial servant to perform works of drudgery, and to find a pleasure in so serving her Lord. Her reverence for him had reached a very high point; she regarded him as a king, and she did what has sometimes been done for monarchs by zealous subjects—she kissed the feet of her heart's Lord, who well deserved the homage. Her loyal reverence led her to kiss the feet of her Lord, the Sovereign of her soul, but I do not find that Jesus said, "Thy humility hath saved thee;" or that he said, "Thy reverence hath saved thee;" but he put the crown upon the head of her faith, and said expressly, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."
    In the case of the blind man to whom my second text refers—this man was notable for his earnestness; he cried, and cried aloud, "Son of David, have mercy on me." He was notable for his importunity, for they who would have silenced him rebuked him in vain; he cried so much the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But I do not discover that Christ attributed his salvation to his prayers, earnest and importunate though they were. It is not written, "Thy prayers have saved thee"; it is written, "Thy faith hath saved thee." He was a man of considerable and clear knowledge, and he had a distinct apprehension of the true character of Christ: he scorned to call him Jesus of Nazareth, as the crowd did, but he proclaimed him "Son of David," and in the presence of that throng he dared avow his full conviction that the humble man, dressed in a peasant's garb, who was threading his way through the throng, was none other than the royal heir of the royal line of Judah, and was indeed the fulfiller of the type of David, the expected Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Son of David. Yet I do not find that Jesus attributed his salvation to his knowledge, to his clear apprehension, or to his distinct avowal of his Messiahship; but he said to him, "Thy faith hath saved thee," laying the entire stress of his salvation upon his faith.

    This being so in both cases, we are led to ask, what is the reason for it? What is the reason why in every case, in every man that is saved, faith is the great instrument of salvation? Is it not first because God has a right to choose what way of salvation he pleases, and he has chosen that men should be saved, not by their works, but by their faith in his dear Son? God has a right to give his mercy to whom he pleases; he has a right to give it when he pleases; he has a right to give it in what mode he pleases; and know ye this, O sons of men, that the decree of heaven is immutable, and standeth fast forever—"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." To this there shall be no exception; Jehovah has made the rule and it shall stand. If thou wouldst have salvation, "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"; but if not, salvation is utterly impossible to thee. This is the appointed way; follow it, and it leads to heaven; refuse it, and thou must perish. This is God's sovereign determination, "He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the Son of God." Jehovah's will be done. If this be his method of grace, let us not kick against it. If he determines that faith shall save, so let it be; only, Good Master, create and increase our faith.

    But while I attribute this to the sovereign choice of God, I do see, for Scripture plainly indicates it, a reason in the nature of things why faith should thus have been selected. The apostle tells us it is of faith that it might be of grace. If the condition of salvation had been either feeling or working, then, such is the depravity of our nature, that we should inevitably have attributed the merit of salvation to the working or the feeling. We should have claimed something whereof to glory. It matters not how low the condition may have been, man would have still considered that there was something required of him, that something came from him, and that, therefore, he might take some credit to himself. But no man, unless he be demented, ever claims credit for believing the truth. If he hears that which convinces him, he is convinced; and if he be persuaded, he is persuaded; but he feels that it could not well be otherwise. He attributes the effect to the truth and the influence used. He does not go about and boast because he believes what is so clear to him that he cannot doubt it. If he did so boast of spiritual faith, all thinking men would say at once, "Wherefore dost thou boast in the fact of having believed, and especially when this believing would never have been thine if it had not been for the force of the truth which convinced thee, and the working of the Spirit of God which constrained thee to believe?" Faith is chosen by Christ to wear the crown of salvation because—let me contradict myself—it refuses to wear the crown. It was Christ that saved the penitent woman, it was Christ that saved that blind beggar, but he takes the crown from off his own head, so dear is faith to him, and he puts the diadem upon the head of faith and says, "Thy faith hath saved thee," because he is absolutely certain that faith will never take the glory to herself, but will again lay the crown at the pierced feet, and say, "Not unto myself be glory, for thou hast done it; thou art the Saviour, and thou alone." In order, then, to illustrate and to protect the interests of sovereign grace, and to shut out all vain glorying, God has been pleased to make the way of salvation to be by faith, and by no other means.

    Nor is this all. It is clear to every one who chooses to think that in order to the renewal of the heart, which is the chief part of salvation, it is well to begin with the faith; because faith once rightly exercised becomes the mainspring of the entire nature. The man believes that he is forgiven. What then? He feels gratitude to him who has pardoned him. Feeling gratitude, it is but natural that he should hate that which displeases his Saviour, and should love intensely that which is pleasing to him who saved him, so that faith operates upon the entire nature, and becomes the instrument in the hand of the regenerating Spirit by which all the faculties of the soul are put into the right condition. As a man thinketh in his heart so is he, but his thinkings come out of his believings; if he be put right in his believings, then his understanding will operate upon his affections, and all the other powers of his manhood, and old things will pass away, all things will become new through the wonderful effect of the faith, which is of the operation of God. Faith works by love, and through love it purifies the soul, and the man becomes a new creature. See ye then the wisdom of God? He may choose what way he will, but he chooses a way which at once guards his grace from our felonious boastings, and on the other hand produces in us a holiness which other wise never would have been there.

    Faith in salvation, however, is not the meritorious cause; nor is it in any sense the salvation itself. Faith saves us just as the mouth saves from hunger. If we be hungry, bread is the real cure for hunger, but still it would be right to say that eating removes hunger, seeing that the bread itself could not benefit us, unless the mouth should eat it. Faith is the soul's mouth, whereby the hunger of the heart is removed. Christ also is the brazen serpent lifted up; all the healing virtue is in him; yet no healing virtue comes out of the brazen serpent to any who will not look; so that the looking is rightly considered to be the act which saves. True, in the deepest sense it is Christ uplifted who saves, to him be all the glory; but without looking to him ye cannot be saved, so that

"There is life in a look,"

as well as life in the Saviour to whom you look. Nothing is yours until you appropriate it. If you be enriched, the thing appropriated enriches you; yet it is not incorrect but strictly right to say it is the appropriation of the blessing which makes you rich. Faith is the hand of the soul. Stretched out, it lays hold of the salvation of Christ, and so by faith we are saved. "Thy faith hath saved thee." I need not dwell longer on that point. It is self-evident from the text that faith is the great means of salvation.

    II. WHAT KIND OF FAITH WAS IT that saved these people? I will mention, first, the essential agreements; and then, secondly, the differentia, or the points in which this faith differed in its external manifestations in the two cases.
    In the instances of the penitent woman and the blind beggar, their faith was fixed alone in Jesus. You cannot discover anything floating in their faith in Jesus which adulterated it; it was unmixed faith in him. the woman pressed forward to him, her tears fell on him; her ointment was for him; her unloosed tresses were a towel for his; feet she cared for no one else, not even for the disciples whom she respected for his sake; her whole spirit and soul were absorbed in him. He could save her; he could blot out her sins. She believed him; she did it unto him. The same was the case with that blind man. He had no thought of any ceremonies to be performed by priests; he had no idea of any medicine which might be given him by physicians. His cry was, "Son of David, Son of David." The only notice he took of others was to disregard them, and still to cry, "Son of David, Son of David." "What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee?" was the Lord's question, and it answered to the desire of his soul, for he knew that if anything were done it must be done by the Son of David. It is essential that our faith must rest alone on Jesus. Mix anything with Christ, and you are undone. If your faith shall stand with one foot upon the rock of his merits, and the other foot upon the sand of your own duties, it will fall, and great will be the fall thereof. Build wholly on the rock, for if so much as a corner of the edifice shall rest on anything beside, it will ensure the ruin of the whole:—
<>"None but Jesus, none but Jesus
Can do helpless sinners good."
All true faith is alike in this respect.
    The faith of these two was alike in its confession of unworthiness. What meant her standing behind? What meant her tears, her everflowing tears, but that she felt unworthy to draw near to Jesus? And what meant the beggar's cry, "Have mercy on me?" Note the stress he lays upon it. "Have mercy on me." He does not claim the cure by merit, nor ask it as a reward. To mercy he appealed. Now I care not whose faith it is, whether it be that of David in his bitter cries of the fifty-first Psalm, or whether it be that of Paul in his highest exaltation upon being without condemnation through Christ, there is always in connection with true faith a thorough and deep sense that it is mercy, mercy alone, which saves us from the wrath to come. Dear hearer, do not deceive yourself. Faith and boasting are as opposite to one another as the two poles. If you come before Christ with your righteousness in your hand, you come without faith; but if you come with faith you must also come with confession of sin, for true faith always walks hand in hand with a deep sense of guiltiness before the Most High. This is so in every case.

    Their faith was alike, moreover, in defying and conquering opposition. Little do we know the inward struggles of the penitent as she crossed the threshold of Simon's house. "He will repel thee," the stern, cold Pharisee will say, "Get thee gone, thou strumpet; how darest thou defile the doors of honest men." But whatever may happen she passes through the door, she comes to where the feet of the Saviour are stretched out towards the entrance as he is reclining at the table, and there she stands. Simon glanced at her: he thought the glance would wither her, but her love to Christ was too well rooted to be withered by him. No doubt he made many signs of his displeasure, and showed that he was horrified at such a creature being anywhere near him, but she took no notice of him. Her Lord was there, and she felt safe. Timid as a dove, she trembled not while he was near; but she returned no defiant glances for Simon's haughty looks; her eyes were occupied with weeping. She did not turn aside to demand an explanation of his unkind motions, for her lips were all engrossed with kissing those dear feet. Her Lord, her Lord, was all to her. She overcame through faith in him, and held her ground, and did not leave the house till he dismissed her with "Go in peace."
    It was the same with the blind man. He said, "Son of David, have mercy on me." They cried, "Hush! Why these clamours, blind beggar? His eloquence is music; do not interrupt him. Never man spake as he is speaking. Every tone rings like the harps of the angels. Hush! How darest thou spoil his discourse?" But over and above them all went up the importunate prayer, "Son of David, have mercy upon me," and he prevailed. All true faith is opposed. If thy faith be never tried it is not born of the race of the church militant. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith," but it is indicated in that very declaration that there must be something to overcome, and that faith must wage war for its existence.

    Once more, the faith of these two persons was alike in being openly avowed. I will not say that the avowal took the same form in both, for it did not; but still it was equally open. There is the Saviour, and there comes the weeping penitent. She loves him. Is she ashamed to say so? It may bring her reproach; it will certainly rake up the old reproaches against her, for she has been a sinner. Never mind what she has been, nor who may be present to see her. She loves her Lord, and she will show it. She will bring the ointment and she will anoint his feet, even in the presence of Pharisees, Pharisees who would say, "Is this one of the disciples of Christ? A pretty convert to boast of! A fine conquest this, for his kingdom! A harlot becomes a disciple! What next and what next?" She must have known and felt all that, but still there was no concealment. She loved her Lord, and she would avow it, and so in the very house of the Pharisee, there being no other opportunity so convenient, she comes forward, and without words, but with actions far more eloquent than words, she says, "I love him. These tears shall show it; this ointment shall diffuse the knowledge of it, as its sweet perfume fills the room; and every lock of my hair shall be a witness that I am my Lord's and he is mine." She avowed her faith.

    And so did the blind man. He did not sit there and say, "I know he is the Son of David, but I must not say it." They said, some of them contemptuously, and others indifferently, "It is Jesus of Nazareth." But he will not have it so. "Thou Son of David," saith he; and loud above their noise I hear him cry, like a herald proclaiming the King, "Son of David." Why, sirs, it seems to me he was exalted to a high office: he became the herald of the King, and proclaimed him, and this belongs to a high officer of State in our country. The blind beggar showed great decision and courage. He cried in effect, "Son of David thou art; Son of David I proclaim thee; Son of David thou shalt be proclaimed, whoever may gainsay it; only turn thine eyes and have mercy upon me." Are there any of you here who have a faith in Christ which you are ashamed of? I also am ashamed of you, and so also will Christ be ashamed of you when he cometh in the glory of his Father and all his holy angels with him. Ashamed to claim that you are honest? Then methinks you must live in bad company, where to be a rogue is to be famous; and if you are ashamed to say, "I love my Lord," methinks you are courting the friendship of Christ's enemies, and what can you be but an enemy yourself: If you love him, say it. Put on your Master's regimentals, enlist in his army, and come forward and declare, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Their faith was alike then in these four particulars, it was fixed alone on him, it was accompanied with a sense of unworthiness, it struggled and conquered opposition, and it openly declared itself before all comers.

    By your patience I shall now try to show the differences between the same faith as to its manifestations. First, the woman's faith acted like a woman's faith. She showed tender love, and the affections are the glory and the strength of women. They were certainly such in her. Her love was intense, womanly love, and she poured it out upon the Saviour. The man's faith acted like a man's in its determination and strength. He persisted in crying, "Thou Son of David." There was as much that was masculine about his faith as there was of the feminine in the penitent's faith, and everything should be in its order and after its season. It would not have been meet for the woman's voice to be heard so boldly above the crowd; it would have seemed out of place for a man's tears to have been falling upon the Saviour's feet. Either one or the other might have been justifiable, but they would not have been equally suitable. But now they are as suitable as they are excellent. The woman acts as a godly woman should. The man like a godly man. Never let us measure ourselves by other people. Do not, my brother, say, "I could not shed tears." Who asked thee to do so? A man's tears are mostly within, and so let them be: it is ours to use other modes of showing our love. And, my sister, do not say, "I could not act as a herald and publicly proclaim the King." I doubt not thou couldest do so if there were need, but thy tears in secret, and those wordless tokens of love to Jesus which thou are rendering, are not less acceptable because they are not the same as a man would give. Nay, they are the better because they are more suitable to thee. Do not think that all the flowers of God's garden must bloom in the same colour or shed the same perfume.

    Notice next that the woman acted like a woman who had been a sinner. What more meet than tears? What more fitting place for her than at the Saviour's feet? She had been a sinner, she acts like a sinner; but the man who had been a beggar acted like a beggar. What does a beggar do but clamour for alms? Did he not beg gloriously? Never one plied the trade more earnestly than he. "Son of David," said he, "have mercy on me." I should not have liked to have seen the beggar sitting there weeping; nor to have heard the penitent woman shouting. Neither would have been natural or seemly. Faith works according to the condition, circumstances, sex, or ability of the person in whom it lives, and it best shows itself in its own form, not in an artificial manner, but in the natural outflow of the heart.

    Observe, also, that the woman did not speak. There is something very beautiful in the golden silence of the woman, which was richer than her silver speech would have been. But the man was not silent; he spoke; he spoke out, and his words were excellent. I venture to say that the woman's silence spoke as powerfully as the man's voice. Of the two I think I find more eloquence in the tears bedewing, and unbraided hair wiping the Saviour's feet, than in the cry, "Son of David, have mercy on me." Yet both forms of expression were equally good, the silence best in the woman with her tears, and the speech best in the man with his confident trust in Christ. Do not think it necessary, dear friend, in order to serve, to do other people's work. What thine own hand findeth to do, do it with thy might. If you think you can never honour Christ till you enter a pulpit, it may be just possible that you will afterwards honour him best by getting out of it as quickly as you can. There have been persons well qualified to adorn the religion of Christ with a lapstone on their lap who have thought it necessary to mount a pulpit, and in that position have been a hindrance to Christ and his gospel. Sister, there is a sphere for you; keep to it, let none push you out of it; but do not think there is nothing else to do except the work which some other woman does. God has called her, let her follow God's voice; he calls you in another direction, follow his voice thither. You will be most like that other excellent woman when you are most different from her: I mean, you will be most truly obedient to Christ, as she is, if you pursue quite another path.

    There was a difference, again, in this. The woman gave—she brought her ointment. The man did the opposite—he begged. There are various ways of showing love to Christ, which are equally excellent tokens of faith. To give him of her ointment, and give him of her tears, and give him the accommodation of her hair, was well; it showed her faith, which worked by love: to give nothing, for the beggar had nothing to give, but simply to honour Christ by appealing to his bounty and his royal power, was best in the beggar. I can commend neither above the other, for I doubt not that both the penitent and the beggar gave Christ their whole heart, and what more does Jesus ask for from any one?

    The thoughts of the woman and the thoughts of the beggar were different too. Her thoughts were mainly about the past, and her sins—hence her tears. To be forgiven, that was her point. His thoughts were mainly about the present, and did not so much concern his sin as his deficiency, infirmity, and inability, and so he came with different thoughts. I do not doubt that he thought of sin, as I dare say she also thought of infirmity; but in her case the thought of sin was uppermost, and hence the tears; in his the infirmity was uppermost, and hence the prayer, "Lord, that I might receive my sight." Do not, then, compare your experience with that of another. God is a God of wonderful variety. The painter who repeats himself in many pictures has a paucity of conception, but the master artist scarcely ever sketches the same thing a second time. There is a boundless variety in genius, and God who transcends all the genius of men, creates an infinite variety in the works of his grace. Look not, therefore, for likeness everywhere. The woman, it is said, loved much, and she proved her love by her acts; but the man loved much too, and showed his love by actions which were most admirable, for he followed Jesus in the way, glorifying God. Yet they were different actions. I do not find that he brought any box of ointment, or anointed Christ's feet, neither do I find that she literally followed Christ in the way, though no doubt she followed him in the spirit; neither did she with a loud voice glorify God as the restored blind beggar did. There are differences of operation, but the same Lord; there are differences of capacity and differences of calling, and by this reflection I hope you will be enabled to deliver yourselves from the fault of judging one by another, and that you will look for the same faith, but not for the same development of it.

    So interesting is this subject that I want you to follow me while I very rapidly sketch the woman's case, and then the man's, not mentioning the differences one by one, but allowing the two pictures to impress themselves separately upon your minds.

    Observe this woman. What a strange compound she was. She was consciously unworthy, and therefore she wept, yet she drew very near to Jesus. Her acts were those of nearness and communion; she washed his feet with her tears, she wiped them with the hairs of her head, and meanwhile she kissed them again and again. "She hath not ceased," said Christ, "to kiss my feet." A sense of unworthiness, and the enjoyment of communion, were mixed together. Oh, divine faith which blends the two! She was shamefaced, yet was she very bold. She dared not look the Master in the face as yet; she approached him from behind; yet she dared face Simon, and remain in his room, whether he frowned or no. I have known some who have blushed in the face of Christ who would not have blushed before a judge, nor at the stake, if they had been dragged there for Christ's sake. Such a woman was Anne Askew, humble before her Master, but like a lioness before the foes of God.

    The penitent woman wept, she was a mourner, yet she had a deep joy; I know she had, for every kiss meant joy. Every time she lifted that blessed foot, and kissed it, her heart leaped with the transport of love. Her heart knew bitterness for sin, but it knew also the sweetness of pardon. What a mixture! Faith made the compound. She was humble, never one more so; yet see how she takes upon herself to deal with the King himself. Brethren, you and I are satisfied, and well we may be, if we may wash the saints' feet, but she was not. Oh, the courage of this woman! She will pass through the outer court, and get right to the King's own throne, and there pay her homage, in her own person, to his person, and wash the feet of the wonderful, the Counsellor, the mighty God. I know not that an angel ever performed such suit and service, and therefore this woman takes preeminence as having done for Jesus what no other being ever did. I have said that she was silent, and yet she spake; I will add, she was despised, but Christ set her high in honour, and made Simon, who despised her, to feel little in her presence. I will also add she was a great sinner, but she was a great saint. Her great sinnership, when pardoned, became the raw stuff out of which great saints are made by the mighty power of God. Finally she was saved by faith, so says the text, but if ever there was a case in which James could not have said, "Shall faith save thee?" and in which he must have said, "Here is one that shows her faith by her works," it was the case of this woman. There she is before you. Imitate her faith itself, though you cannot actually copy her deeds.

    Now look at the man. He was blind, but he could see a great deal more than the Pharisees, who said they could see. Blind, but his inward optics saw the king in his beauty, saw the splendour of his throne, and he confessed it. He was a beggar, but he had a royal soul, and a strong sovereign determination which was not to be put down. He had the kind of mind which dwells in men who are princes among their fellows. He is not to be stopped by disciples, nay, nor by apostles. He has begun to pray, and pray he will till he obtains the boon he seeks. Note well that what he knew he avowed, what he desired he pleaded for, and what he needed he understood. "Lord, that I might receive my sight;" he was clear about his needs, and clear about the only person who could supply them. What he asked for he expected, for when he was bidden to come he evidently expected that his sight would be restored, for we are told by another Evangelist that he cast away his beggar's cloak. He felt he should never want to beg again. He was sure his eyes were about to be opened. Lastly, what he received he was grateful for, for as soon as he could walk without a guide he took Christ to be his guide, and followed him in the way, glorifying him. Look on both pictures. May you have the shadows and the lights of both, as far as they would tend to make you also another and distinct picture by the selfsame artist, whose hand alone can produce such wonders.

    III. WHAT DOES THIS TEACH US IN REFERENCE TO FAITH? It teaches us first that faith is all important. Do, I pray you, my hearers, see whether you have the precious faith, the faith of God's elect. Remember there are not many things in Scripture called precious, but there is the precious blood, and there goes with it the precious faith. If you have not that you are lost; if you have not that you are neither fit to live nor fit to die; if you have not that, your eternal destiny will be infinite despair; but if you have faith, though it be as a grain of mustard seed, you are saved. "Thy faith hath saved thee."
    Learn next that the main matter in faith is the person whom you believe. I do not say in whom you believe. That would be true, but not quite so scriptural an expression. Paul does not say, as I hear most people quote it, "I know in whom I have believed." Faith believes Christ. Your faith must recognise him as a person, and come to him as a person, and rest not in his teaching merely, or his work only, but in him. "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." A personal Saviour for sinners! Are you resting on him alone? Do you believe him? You know the safety of the building depends mainly upon the foundation, and if the foundation be not right, you may build as you will, it will not last. Do you build, then, on Christ alone? Inquire about that as a special point.

    Observe next, that we must not expect exactly the same manifestation in each convert. Let not the elders of the church expect it, let not parents require it from their children; let not anxious friends look for it; do not expect it in yourself. Biographies are very useful, but they may become a snare. I must not judge that I am not a child of God because I am not precisely like that good man whose life I have just been reading. Am I resting in Christ? Do I believe him? Then it may be the Lord's grace is striking out quite a different path for me from that which has been trodden by my brother, that it may illustrate other phases of its power, and show to principalities and powers the exceeding riches of divine love.

    And, lastly, the matter which sums up all is this, if we have faith in Jesus we are saved, and ought not to talk or act as if there were any question about it. "THY FAITH HATH SAVED THEE." Jesus says it. Granted, you have faith in Christ, and it is certain that faith hath saved you. Do not, therefore, go on talking and acting and feeling as if you were not saved. I know a company of saved people who say every Sabbath, "Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable sinners"; but they are not miserable sinners if they are saved, and for them to use such words is to throw a slight upon the salvation which Christ has given them. If they are saved sinners they ought to be rejoicing saints. What some say others do not say, but they act as if it were so. They go about asking God to give them the mercy they have already obtained, hoping one day to receive what Christ assures them is already in their possession, talking to others as if it were a matter of question whether they were saved or not, when it cannot be a matter of question. "Thy faith hath saved thee." Fancy the poor penitent woman turning round and saying to the Saviour, "Lord, I humbly hope that it is true." There would have been neither humility nor faith in such an expression. Imagine that blind man, when Christ said, "Thy faith hath saved thee," saying "I trust that in future years it will be found to be so." It would be a belying at once of his own earnest character and of Christ's honesty of speech. If thou hast believed, thou art saved. Do not talk as if thou wert not, but now down from the willows take thy harp, and sing unto the Lord a new song. I have noticed in many prayers a tendency to avoid speaking as if facts were facts. I have heard this kind of expression, "The Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we desire to be glad." The text is, "The Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad;" and if the Lord has done these great things for us our right is to be glad about them, not to go with an infamous "if" upon our lips before the Lord who cannot lie. If ye are dealing with your fellow creatures, suspect them, for they mostly deserve it; if ye are listening to their promises, doubt them, for their promises go to be broken; but if ye are dealing with your Lord and Master, never suspect him, for he is beyond suspicion; never doubt his promises, for heaven and earth and hell shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle of his word shall fail. I claim for Christ that ye cast away forever all the talk which is made up of "buts," and "ifs," and "peradventures," and "I hope," and "I trust." You are in the presence of One who said, "Verily, verily," and meant what he said, who is "the Amen, the faithful and true witness."

    You would not spit in his face if he were here, yet your "ifs" and "buts" are so much insult cast upon his truth. You would not scourge him, but what do your doubts do but vex him and put him to shame? If he lies, never believe him; if he speaks the truth, never doubt him. Then shall ye know when ye have cast aside your wicked unbelief, that your faith has saved you, and ye will go in peace.

More Spurgeon's semons from Spurgeon.org.

DELIVER US FROM ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

Do you know there are two films out there entitled DELIVER US FROM EVIL? Yes people might get confused which one is real and which one is fiction. The real DELIVER US FROM EVIL is an expose` of the real evil people and pedophiles inside the Roman Catholic Church. I'm specifically talking "about Father Oliver O'Grady, a Catholic priest who was relocated to various parishes around the United States during the 1970s in an attempt by the Catholic Church to cover up his rape of dozens of children." And the other Deliver Us from Evil is nothing but a fictitious film which I believe another film made to cover up Pedophilia in Romanism. Obviously its a film made to confuse people and kids that the Roman Catholic Church is composed of priests that are sex maniacs and sex abusers. And of course the fictitious Deliver Us from Evil film the priest there is portrayed as a Man of God who smokes, drinks heavily and enjoys night life. An unorthodox Roman Catholic priest who is an exorcist. What a deception. Its obviously a film made to deceive and confuse the masses that the real evil is inside the Roman Church. Deliver us from Roman Catholicism!

Youtube Vid: Deliver Us From Evil Interview - Amy Berg interviewed by Chaim Lazaros - WKCR

Filmmaker Amy Berg recounts a harrowing story of child abuse and how a serial child molester went free for the better part of two decades in this documentary. Oliver O'Grady was a Catholic priest who served in a number of parishes in Southern California during the 1970s and '80s. O'Grady was also a habitual child molester who abused dozens of youngsters who were entrusted to his care, and while his superiors in the church were aware of O'Grady's crimes as early as 1973, they opted to simply move him from one congregation to another rather than turn him in to authorities or strip him of his ordination. In Deliver Us From Evil, a number of O'Grady's victims and their families discuss his crimes and the repercussions they feel to this day. O'Grady himself also appears in the film, speaking candidly about his career as a sexual predator and recounting his misdeeds in detail. (After finally being convicted of child sexual abuse, O'Grady served time in prison and now lives in Ireland, where he is still looked after by Catholic clergy.)

Berg also offers a look into the history of the Catholic Church and how its leadership has often protected those within the hierarchy at the expense of their worshipers. Deliver Us From Evil was named Best Documentary Feature at the 2006 Los Angeles Film Festival. (Source: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/deliver-us-from-evil/ )

DELIVER US FROM EVIL.