IS THIS POPE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR “LAST DAYS” FALSE PROPHET?

Pope Francis has set about uniting all faiths, many times he has said that all major religions are meeting God in different ways. Prophecy reveals that in the end times the False Prophet will lead a one world religion. Could Pope Francis, the current leader of over 1 billion Catholics, be a likely candidate?

In February of this year about 135,000 attended the Mass led by Pope Francis in Zayed Sports City stadium in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, Catholics from about 100 nations were expected to attend the Mass, along with about 4,000 Muslims, including government officials, organisers said. As mentioned, we should not be surprised as the pope has said many times that all major religions are meeting God in different ways. This is apostasy of the first order. Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” John 14:6

In the video below FR. JOSEPH FESSIO, SJ, founder and editor of Ignatius Press provides his analysis on World Over of a new open letter signed by a growing number of Catholic theologians accusing the Pope of heresy.

Summary of the open letter to bishops as presented by the authors themselves:

The Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church is the third stage in a process that began in the summer of 2016. At that time, an ad hoc group of Catholic clergy and scholars wrote a private letter to all the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs, pointing out heresies and other serious errors that appeared to be contained in or favoured by Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. 

The following year, after Pope Francis had continued by word, deed, and omission to propagate many of these same heresies, a ‘Filial Correction’ was addressed to the pope by many of the same people, as well as by other clergy and scholars. This second letter was made public in September 2017, and a petition in support of it was signed by some 14,000 people.

The present Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church goes a stage further in claiming that Pope Francis is guilty of the crime of heresy.

This crime is committed when a Catholic knowingly and persistently denies something which he knows that the Church teaches to be revealed by God. Taken together, the words and actions of Pope Francis amount to a comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins.

The Open letter also indicates the link between this rejection of Catholic teaching and the favour shown by Pope Francis to bishops and other clergy who have either been guilty of sexual sins and crimes, such as former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, or who have protected clergy guilty of sexual sins and crimes, such as the late Cardinal Godfried Danneels. This protection and promotion of clerics who reject Catholic teaching on marriage, sexual activity, and on the moral law in general, even when these clerics personally violate the moral and civil law in horrendous ways, is consistent enough to be considered a policy on the part of Pope Francis. At the least it is evidence of disbelief in the truth of Catholic teaching on these subjects. It also indicates a strategy to impose rejection of these teachings on the Church, by naming to influential posts individuals whose personal lives are based on violation of these truths.

The authors consider that a heretical papacy may not be tolerated or dissimulated to avoid a worse evil. It strikes at the basic good of the Church and must be corrected. For this reason, the study concludes by describing the traditional theological and legal principles that apply to the present situation.

The authors respectfully request the bishops of the Church to investigate the accusations contained in the letter, so that if they judge them to be well founded, they may free the Church from her present distress, in accordance with the hallowed adage, Salus animarum prima lex (‘the salvation of souls is the highest law’). They can do this by admonishing Pope Francis to reject these heresies, and if he should persistently refuse, by declaring that he has freely deprived himself of the papacy.

FRANCIS CHAN RESPONDS TO CRITICS

Followers of my blog know that I promote Francis Chan’s view of the church. He has come under severe criticism for his involvement in the recent SEND Conference. This is his response.

WHY DO YOU SOMETIMES ACCEPT SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS IN PLACES THAT TOLERATE THEOLOGY THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS?

I speak at events almost every week of the year. Often times, it’s more than one event a week. I don’t really enjoy it—I hate the travel, but try not to complain about it. Despite the toll it can take on myself and the family, it is always an honour to preach the Word. I believe it is my calling. Some question my choice to speak so often, but my best discernment and the discernment of the elders of our church is that it is still a part of my calling in this season.

I am asked to speak at approximately 500 events a year. I decline approximately 90% of the requests. It’s a difficult thing to do. Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe. My reasoning is that it may be a waste of Kingdom resources for all of us to be there, speaking largely to people who already agree with us. It seems more effective to speak where there is less Bible teaching. It has not been my practice to ask who will share the platform with me and to research the other speakers. While some may be dear friends, there are many that I know little about. This current experience has caused me to consider exercising more caution and to develop a team to help me research. That being said, I speak in many places where I am not in alignment theologically. I actually believe that is where I can be most effective, as long as they give me freedom to address anything I believe the Lord wants me to address.

I recognise, now more than ever, that sometimes my participation can give the impression that I align with every other speaker at the event. I’m not sure what to do about that other than to tell you that I don’t. Unless the elders of my church direct me differently, I will continue to be found preaching in venues with those I disagree. I will preach in just about any kind of setting if I’m given freedom to preach from any passage of scripture. The elders and I are trying to come up with more safeguards for future events to hopefully prevent misunderstandings. Pray for us.

PREPARE FOR THE NEXT ONSLAUGHT AGAINST THE BIBLE

Response by Dr Michael Brown, host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program to media on Attorney General, Jeff Sessions quoting Scripture.

“No sooner will we quote a passage from the Bible to a non-believer (or, to a believer of a different persuasion), then they will respond, “You can make the Bible mean whatever you want it to. Remember what Jeff Sessions said?”

Jeff Sessions

In case you somehow missed the massive, swirling controversy surrounding Sessions’ use of Romans 13, the headlines are everywhere.

  • In The Washington Post: “Jeff Sessions defended family separation with the Bible. John Oliver countered with Dr. Seuss.”
  • On CNN: “What does the Bible verse Jeff Sessions quoted really mean?”
  • In USA Today: “Why is Jeff Sessions quoting Romans 13 and why is the Bible verse so often invoked?”
  • In the Huffington Post: “Jeff Sessions Has Got the Bible All Wrong.”
  • In the Star Tribune: “Jeff Sessions, immigration and the Bible: The problems with citing a passage to support an opinion.”

On and on it goes, almost endlessly. Just search for “Jeff Sessions Bible,” and you’ll be flooded with relevant links.

In short, Sessions quoted Romans 13, which calls Christians to submit to the governing authorities, to explain to “church friends” why we must uphold our “zero-tolerance” immigration laws. His exact words were, “I would cite you to the apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.”

If Sessions was simply saying that we are a nation of laws, and the Bible reminds us of the importance of obeying our laws, he was saying nothing extraordinary or outlandish.

Context will not matter. Sound interpretive methods will not matter. Logic and reason will not matter.

Instead, no matter what we say and no matter how accurately we say it, the rebuttal will be instant: “The Nazis quoted the Bible too.” Or, “You’re twisting the Bible, just like Jeff Sessions did.” Or, even, “Yeah, you sound just like Trump!” (Let’s be realistic. This will ultimately be tied back to Trump. So, if you’re a conservative evangelical— especially if you’re white—and you quote Scripture, you’re guilty of whatever sins Trump committed in his lifetime. I’m hardly exaggerating.)

I’ve watched over the years as anti-Bible lies become popular memes, which then become enshrined as established truth. An example would be, “You can’t trust the Bible. It’s a translation of a translation of a translation.”

Another would be, “Constantine changed the Bible in A.D. 325. We don’t have the original Bible today.”

Today, millions of people take these falsehoods to be gospel truths, while millions more misquote Jesus’ admonition not to judge. (For what He really meant, see here and here.)

And despite the apparent reverence for Scripture reflected in the liberal response to Sessions’ use of Romans 13 (as if the liberal media were grieved that the Bible was misused), what we’re really witnessing is an outright hostility to Scripture. That’s why Tom Gilson wrote a perceptive article titled, “The Washington Post Hates the Bible. If You’re Christian, It Hates You Too.”

You can expect to see that hatred manifest in the instant dismissal of our appeal to Scripture in the days ahead.

When we quote the Word, we’ll be compared to people who want to separate children from their parents (as is happening with the immigration crisis). We’ll be likened to brainless Trump supporters (regardless of the topic under discussion). And we’ll be reminded that the Bible really has no intentional message. “It means whatever you want it to mean.”

Watch and see.”

 

FALSE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS

Sadly teachers abound in Bible Colleges and churches who deny the inerrancy of Scripture. They deny the Bible teaches a direct connection between God’s original acts of creation and His absolute control of every event in time.

The doctrine of creation teaches that God made the physical world using language. He then formed man in His image and gave him the ability to use words to know the world. This includes man’s capacity to record past events and accurately communicate them to others.

This control includes accurate communication through His prophets about real events which He brings to pass. As Isaiah tells us:

“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish, who confirms the word of his servant and fulfils the counsel of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They shall be built, and I will raise up their ruins.’” (Isaiah 44:24-26)

According to Isaiah, there is no essential division between function and matter, language and event, theology and history. One need only read Isaiah 40-48 to see that God forms real materials for specific functions. He explains His words and deeds in space and time through His servants the prophets. He directly connects theology to His actions in history.

Dr. Nicholas Perrin, a professor of Biblical studies at Wheaton who specialises in Gnosticism in the early church, explains this essential connection between God and history:

“God made history and history matters. Apart from the conviction that our faith is a historical faith, we are left only to cast about. But, when we are fully persuaded that sacred history meshes with the history in which we live and move and have our being, that is when biblical faith becomes a real possibility…. The heart-and-mind value of reconnecting the biblical world with the ‘real world’ can hardly be overstated. Somehow in our confused modern-day thinking, we have managed to put asunder what God has joined together.”

Is it any wonder then, that although Biblically false, Christians in the USA believe:

70% of Christians believe Jesus was the first being God created

66% of evangelical Christians say heaven is a place where all people will be reunited with their loved ones.

54% of Christians believe everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.

It follows that many church denominations are accepting gay marriage, homosexual and even transgender pastors/leaders. The Bible gives us many examples of God bringing judgement upon Israel and other nations that transgress His laws, why do we think He will not do so today. Jesus said that prior to His Second Coming people would be like they were in the days of Noah. They will call good evil and evil good. Wickedness will abound.

A time of increasing tribulation is coming for believers but eventually God’s wrath will be poured on the unrepentant during the trumpet and bowl judgements. At the sixth seal (Revelation 6:17), we read “For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand.”

In these last days, it will be imperative you are in a church that believes in the inerrancy of God’s Word. The Bible provides a true history of this world and all of the prophesied events in both the old and new testaments have come to pass. Proof it is God’s Word.

CHURCH IS SOWING THE SEEDS OF ITS DESTRUCTION

The Queen’s former chaplain, Gavin Ashenden and other members of a dissident conservative  group of evangelicals wrote in a letter to the press last July: “There are now effectively two opposed expressions of Anglicanism in this country. One has capitulated to secular values, and one continues to hold the faith ‘once delivered to the saints’.”

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby presides over the Anglican Church.

Pope Francis meets the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Picture: AFP
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby presides over the Anglican Church. Pope Francis meets the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

On his blog, Ashenden writes strikingly that the church’s behaviour is rooted in the thinking of Carl Jung, who developed a psychology of spirituality at the heart of which lies the reconciliation of opposites.

Jung believed, writes Ashenden, that two concepts should be dealt with in this way: gender and evil. “The genders are reconciled in some kind of androgynous synthesis, and good and evil befriend each other in some form of mutually convenient accommodation.”

This is exactly what the church is now doing. Just like the gender fluidity it is so eager to embrace, it is promoting the notion that secularism and Christianity can flow in and out of each other.

The secular goal, however, is not tolerance and inclusivity at all. It is to overthrow the Christian basis of the West. It is an exercise in the doctrinaire use of power. As such, the agenda the church is embracing is resulting in the bullying and intimidation of all who transgress the doctrine of gender and sexual fluidity.

Joshua Sutcliffe, a Christian maths teacher in Oxfordshire, faces a disciplinary hearing this week on charges of “misgendering”. His crime? To tell two pupils who were working hard: “Well done, girls.”

One of the girls, however, identifies as a boy. Following a complaint by the pupil’s mother, Sutcliffe was suspended. Reportedly, he also faces claims that he breached the school’s equality policy by referring to the pupil by name rather than as “he” or “him”.

This kind of bullying is said to be occurring within the church itself; the dissident clerics have written of the “booing of traditionalists” and the “personal abuse” they suffered at the synod. As Ashenden observes, those pushing these reforms on the church threaten to change Christianity out of all recognition. “It’s hard to know what to call it,” he writes. “Some have suggested using the label MTD: ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’.”

The outcome of the church evacuating itself of meaning in this “inclusive” way is not a growing flock but empty pews.

Many think the church is an irrelevance. It is not. It is indissolubly connected with Britain’s national identity and the health of its culture. The church is, however, suffering from a kind of spiritual auto-immune disease, attacking its own protective organisms while embracing those that will destroy it. As with the church, moreover, so with the society at whose very core it lies.

As explained in my post – THREAT TO CHRISTIANITY IN THE 21st CENTURY.  Jesus told us there would be a great falling away in the church (apostasy) in the “last days”. Also, evangelical leaders of the church in the USA told us that the greatest threat to Christianity is the Christian church. Now, a “dissident group of evangelical leaders” in the UK are telling us the same story. Surely, adequate proof for even the most sceptical critic that we are in the prophesied “last days” outlined in the Scriptures.