Rome’s Stolen Ideas

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ:

Three centuries BC:

The college of the Vestal Virgins tended the state hearth, and sprinkled it daily with holy water from the fountain of the sacred nymph Egeria. These white-clad, white-veiled nuns were chosen from among girls six to ten years of age; they took a vow of virginity and service for thirty years, but in return they received many public honors and privileges.

pg.63

The ritual of worship aimed merely to offer the gods a gift or sacrifice to win their aid or avert their wrath. To be effective, said the priest, the ceremony had to be performed with such precision of words and movements as only the clergy could manage. If any mistake was made, the rite had to be repeated, even to thirty times. ... Holy formulas pronounced over the victim turned it into a god who was to receive it; it this sense the god himself was sacrificed. 

pg.64

The first citation says how the Roman Catholic Church stole the Vestal Virgin idea and made it into their “nunnery” theology. Nuns must stay virgin and they are clad and veiled in white.

The second citation shows me where the Papist “Mass” comes from.

The Art of Choosing Your Love

In 1995, at a home-school conference, I acquired a 46-page booklet by Pastor Jim West titled, The Art of Choosing Your Love. Although there are some legalistic ideas in it due to being part of the “courtship” movement, overall he had some very good advice. For provoking thought, below I am sharing some quotations from this booklet. 

What women should look for in a husband.

Your first criteria is to marry a man who can love you as Christ loved the church.

Is the man you will marry willing to forgo his own pleasures, his own hobbies, in order to may you happy with his love and to love you the way you wish to be loved? Is he willing to stop his television watching, put down the newspaper to listen to you and to talk with you? Although he is to be a hard worker, he is not to be married to his Job either. He must love you sacrificially. This means that you are to marry a Christ-centered man instead of a self-centered man.

In the home, the man is the king and the woman is his queen. The wife is a mistress who rules, but she does not rule over the husband. To her husband, she is royalty, but that royalty consists in her submission.

The man you desire should be a Christ-centered ruler. … A Christ-centered husband is a husband who is under the easy yoke of Christ. Your husband should rule over himself too. A man who loses his temper easily is a man who cannot rule. If he cannot rule his own passions, if he cannot put a cap on the nuclear reactor, then he cannot rule. The reason is that a man without self-control is a weak man, not a strong man.

Your husband should rule over you in a managerial sense. Three times in the Bible the husband is called a “manager,” that is, the manager of his household (1 Timothy 3:4). … The meaning that the husband is the head, which means that the head does not do the work of the arms or the work of the legs. The head does not do the work of the body. A manager does not say, “I can do it all myself.” Your husband must recognize your gifts and not squash them.

[Marry] a man who will cherish you.

[Marry] a man who respects you.

You must…submit to your husband’s economic decisions. … Although your input is important and crucial, and you husband is a fool if he does not consider your opinion, the final decision is made by your husband. As his helpmeet you must submit to his champagne appetite even if you have a beer budget. Will you marry a man who will listen to your advice? Or will he be like Nabal who was such a fool that “on one would speak to him” (1 Samuel 25:17).

You are to submit to your husband sexually. The culmination of marriage is the marriage bed. Any married woman who withholds her body out of blackmail or personal resentment is a wretch. … (1 Corinthians 7:4) The husband’s body is the wife’s and the wife’s the husband’s.

What men should look for in a wife.

(Referencing Proverbs 30, A man must find a “virtuous woman,” i.e. a “Proverbial Wife.”)

The Proverbial Wife works for God.

The Virtuous Wife fears God. … the more a woman knows about the Bible the more she will acknowledge the sovereignty of God. This is why it is good that a godly wife strive to know the Bible from Genesis to the book of maps!

A man who marries primarily on the basis of what he sees marries on the basis of lust. … There is no such thing as love at first sight. Why not? Because true love is not based upon appearance. True love is based upon the inward character of the heart.

You should be looking for a wife who is husband centered.

You are to trust the moral integrity of your wife.

You are to trust your wife’s fiscal competence.

You will also trust in your wife’s goodness.

You should be searching for a wife who will assist you in your work.

A woman who dresses to draw attention to her legs, breasts, etc., is lusting to be lusted after.

[Choose]  A woman who is wise. … You should be searching for a woman of the Word.

[Choose] A woman with a good testimony.

The man who has chosen his love must love his choice.

The Bible never presents sex as mating; sex is portrayed as communicating. The Song of Solomon is about speaking lovers.

Think About It

If anything is contrary to Scripture, it is wrong.
If anything is the same as Scripture, it is not needed.
If anything goes beyond Scripture, it has no authority.

Curtis Krenshaw.

Agglomeration

This will be my last post of this nature for a while. I am getting inundated with life and I still have to catch up with articles being readied for The Anti-Mormon Blog so I can cut back from that for a while also.

For those who are interested in some of my daily feeds for apologetics information, here’s a short list (you can also just look at sources in the links in my articles).

The Geller Report. Sign up for the daily email.

Pastor Gabe’s Blog

The Messed Up Church

Marshal Art’s (he has a lot of political stuff also)

Winging It. (Very Calvinist position)

Reformation Charlotte. Can sometimes get too picky.

Rational Christian Discernment (includes lots of focus exposing Roman Catholicism)

Church Watch Central

Culture Watch. 

Midwest Christian Outreach. I suggest signing up for the weekly e-mail.

Michelle Lesley

Townhall.  Political and culture focus.

American Thinker. Runs the gamut of politics, culture, religion.

Eternity Matters

The Good - For Education and/or Edification

Christians need to get sexually explicit!

Reading Scripture vs Reading Oneself into Scripture.

What the Bible says about the death penalty for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. A follow-up article is, “I support the death penalty because all lives matter.”

Is it true that God can Use/Redeem Anything?

HMMMM

The Apostle Paul Apologizes For Insensitive Remarks On Sexuality. Well, no he didn’t, but apostates are stumbling all over themselves for saying what Paul DID say.

When your church worships the world. And another one. Yet another one. 

More Wolves and False Teachings

Paula White is getting worse by the day. Those who support her teachings just to be in the limelight should be ashamed of themselves. Of course you have to remember that she committed adultery with arch-heretic Benny Hinn.

How about instead of pandering to biology-deniers we confront them with their sin!

Did Paul Young write this?

No, Bethel, this is NOT from the Holy Spirit, rather it is from sinful self or perhaps even demonic.

I have previously noted problems with singer Lauren Daigle, but this article really opens up the issue.

Randy Clark’s “Global Awakening” to the demonic.

The blasphemy of Joyce Meyer.

I’ll Walk With God

This past Saturday we watched an old movie which we recently purchased — The Student Prince. I first saw this movie while in high school and my mom had an album of the songs from the movie, all sung by Mario Lanza.

This song below has always been one of my favorites from the movie; even as a non Christian I believed in God. In the movie the prince’s father has just died and he now is king. As he stands alone in the cathedral looking at his father’s coffin on the bier with four guards he sings this song, finally realizing his duties.

If you’d like to hear the song, this link goes to the scene (the actor playing the prince is lip-synching Mario Lanza).

The lyrics are good for encouragement and the tune is remarkable.

I'll walk with God

From this day on,

His helping hand I'll lean upon.

This is my prayer my humble plea:

May the Lord be ever with me.

There is no death though eyes grow dim.

There is no fear when I'm near to Him.

I'll lean on Him forever

And He'll forsake me never.

He will not fail me as long as my faith is strong,

What ever road I may walk alone.

I'll walk with God,

I'll take His hand.

I'll talk with God he'll understand.

I'll pray to Him,

Each day to Him,

And He'll hear the words that I say.

His hand will guide my throne and rod

And I'll never walk alone

While I walk with God

Did They Really Say That?!?

Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.213.

Again I have to ask, where is this in Scripture? Christ made atonement for the sins of mankind, Mary did NOT! Roman Catholics make Mary into a god.

Agglomeration

The Good - For Education and/or Edification

How Churches Lose the Plot and End Up Liberal.

Are there apostles and prophets today?

No, the communion wafer is NOT the flesh of Christ, regardless of what Francis Chan says.

HMMMM

Tongue-speaking Mormons.  Just shows that “tongues” with charismatics are just as false.

More Wolves and False Teachings

All you need to know about false teacher Michael Brown. There is NOTHING Biblical about his theology.

A review of a book examining the descent of the Episcopal Church into total apostasy.

Francis Chan has gone full-blown heretic. Here’s a good response to Chan (I disagree with Calvinism, but the history explained in this article is very interesting).

The Anglican Church continues its deep dive into total apostasy.

One of my readers felt that the link to the video of Abi Stumvoll at Bethel Reading didn’t properly represent the particular teaching in that it left out a sentence: It sounds like she is saying God can be like the puss explosion. I went to the longer 30 minute version. She is saying God is like the heat. At around 1:20 or so, [here] is the excerpted version.

And, [here] at 8:35 in the original, she says that God is like the heat. Big difference.

The reader agreed that it is a “terrible ‘sermon’” and even noted that the Stumvolls are “tight” with William P. Young, the author of the heretical book, The Shack. For my part, I didn’t give a whole lot of thought to the “puss explosion” because the whole segment was awful. But when you put a woman teaching the assembly in a church which teaches lots of heresy, let alone aberration ideas, then this is what you can expect.

Beth Moore continues her false teachings, now attacking John MacArthur.

Aside from being a heretic, the Pope is a complete disgrace to any semblance of the Christian faith.

I’ve warned before about Max Lucado’s touchy-feely theology. This is what you get with that kind of theology. This is the guy who praised the “Son of God” movie, who promotes heretic Christine Caine, preached at Joel Osteen’s goat pen, and took part in the “Be Still” video.  Another look at the situation, a bit more in depth.

The Jehovah of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The dangers of “charismatic conditioning.” Todd White and his ilk are such horrid false teachers! And Francis Chan is doing his best to emulate them.

This is what happens when you attend an apostate church.

Did They Really Say That?!?

From that great treasure of all graces, which the Lord has brought, nothing, according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary, so that, as nobody can approach the Supreme Father except through the Son, similarly nobody can approach Christ except through the Mother.

Pope Leo XIII, Rosary Encyclical “Octobri mense” (1891)

Why can we not find this claim about Mary in the Bible? This says that unless we go through Mary, we cannot be saved. This is rank HERESY!.

Did They Really Say That?!?

Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 A.D.)

So if one refuses to accept subjection to the Pope, he cannot be saved? Please show me this from Scripture.

Marriage and Contraception

The topic of this post is a wee bit off the normal apologetic posts, but it is indeed apologetics in that it is about refuting Roman Catholic abuse of Scripture on a serious issue.

About 35 years ago I was having a discussion with a fellow employee who was Roman Catholic. He was trying to covert me to Roman Catholicism so I was doing my best to demonstrate the errors of the RCC.  For ease of communication we ended up writing commentaries back and forth and then trade them at work. I thought I had thrown out the whole file but a couple weeks ago, while digging into some old paperwork, I came across my copy of the two pages I wrote to contradict the RCC ideas about marital sexual relations and contraception—including that every act of sexual intercourse should be open to conception. I decide to share this information, hence this article which is copied verbatim except I will put quotations from Catholic sources in blue. Any necessary commentary to give the context will be in brackets.

======================

Purpose of Marriage:

Gen. 2 is an in-depth account of how man was created. Before woman was created Gen. 2:18 gives the primary purpose for marriage: “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Companionship came before “Be fruitful and multiply.” 

I do not think 1 Cor. 7:2 has a bearing since it was written thousands of years after the purpose of marriage was established.

Matt.19:9 says “except for immorality,” suggesting divorce then is all right and marriage again is not adultery! That’s what I read from the context. I agree with the Greek Orthodox Church. Additionally, the staunch Catholic stance against divorce is hypocritical when they have the same thing in “annulment.”  A couple could be married for 30 years when one wants a separation over something “illegal” in Catholic theology and suddenly they were never married and both can be remarried.

Catholic Catechism:

By specifying onanism (p.371) it is obvious the Catholic doctrine against a “natural” birth control method (i.e. withdrawal) stems from Gen. 38:9-10. The problem is that this is a specific incident where Onan did not want to do his duty because he knew it would not be his child. This was not what God wanted for him (Onan), not a policy to be established for all.

Contraception is not comparable to abortion (although abortion is used for that purpose) or infanticide because you have not taken a life, only prevented its conception.

The Popes have a right to their opinion and that is precisely what the anti-contraceptive doctrine is. That opinion is not divinely ordained! Their ideology is that the sex act is to be used only for childbirth, hence abstinence is great if children are unwanted. But abstinence itself can be considered unnatural within marriage.

“The conjugal act is of its very nature designed for” sexual pleasure between married persons [vs only childbearing]. If the orgasmic pleasure were not part of the sexual experience, people would still mate when children were desired. While it’s true that a man normally reaches his climax during intercourse, I have read in numerous places that women frequently are unable to reach a climax through intercourse alone. That tells me that God wanted man to spend time in loving his wife to give her as much pleasure as he derives from the experience. This is not necessary if all that is desired is conception, and for the most part the women would be left out of it pleasure-wise. Lest you say that is the reason love is part of conception, this can be true while at the same time it is apparent that there are two distinct purposes for sexual intercourse: love and procreation. While love does not have to end in procreation, nor should it always, procreation should definitely begin with love.

Many other sexual activities such as oral sex or mutual manual stimulation to orgasm are nowhere proscribed in the scriptures yet do not result in conception, while at the same time are quite natural activities. It can be said then that they are methods of contraception! Withdrawal or condoms, neither of which add to the system by way of “magic potions” or harm the body in any way, cannot be considered unnatural, shameful or immoral.

Merely having the authority to teach morals does not allow the making up of moral standards. Authority can be, and is, abused by those endowed with it.

What about women who can have children only at the risk of losing their own life? If they opt for sterilization or contraception, is it wrong? Are they not allowed to enjoy marriage at its fullest because they may get pregnant and die? “Natural” contraception the Catholic way is not 100% sure and therefore prohibitive in this instance. Should the husband then get an annulment since he can’t consummate the marriage? Or is that something they just forego because of their love for God?

Why should there always be two functions of marital intercourse? What’s wrong with just the unitive function that was so obviously intended for pleasure?  What about when the couple are no longer in childbearing years—are they to no longer have sexual relations because they aren’t open to conception? 

Pleasure within a loving relationship does not necessarily translate into selfishness [as noted in the information provide to me]. That is merely an opinion by someone abusing authority. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I do not recall reading anywhere in the scriptures where it says a married couple are not to enjoy themselves unless they leave it open for conception. This is such a vital issue that I believe Jesus would have specifically mentioned it.  It therefore seems to be a matter of personal philosophy, not divine rules for living.

The rhythm method is a way allowed for contraception solely because it is “natural.” What hypocrisy! It still interferes with procreation in the strictest sense in that you are choosing when to have intercourse. That is not any more natural than using a condom, or any more natural than using withdrawal. Contraception by any other name…….

What the Church says is that contraception is all right — “our way.” Rhythm doesn’t prove a “truly and praiseworthy love” — it only proves you don’t want children. It is self-righteous garbage to say one way of contraception is selfless love while another way is sin. Both interfere with nature in its strictest sense.

I believe you adequately presented the Catholic Church’s stance and reasons for its anti-contraceptive stance. However, I feel I have presented just as good a case for the “natural” contraceptive practices of withdrawal and condoms (especially the made of natural material vs rubber, etc).

One last item to mention on this subject. As mentioned in some of the material, there are many reasons for not wanting children in a marriage, the primary one of which seems to be financial considerations. To deny someone the right to marriage without children is unnatural. The PRIMARY PURPOSE, as noted in Gen. 2:18, is for companionship; full, loving, intimate companionship. This is what God so obviously intended. If children were the primary reason, there would be no need to make two sexes. God could have made mankind hermaphrodite and let him populate the world by himself!

I do not object to abstinence outside of marriage; not being married demands chastity, as so many times demanded by scripture! 

You can find a more thorough examination of the topic of contraception in my article, Is Contraception Unbiblical? (i.e. Sinful?)