It is quite interesting to see that Roman Catholics say that Protestantism is divided. There is a true form of Protestantism which exists regardless of the many varieties, and that is the orthodox doctrines in regards salvation, the Deity of Christ and other foundational doctrines.

But Roman Catholicism is itself divided, broadly between modernists and conservatives, but also on various rites and rituals. And there are differences between which “Church” Council mass one might follow (e.g. Trent or Tridentine versus post-Vatican 2). And among the more traditional Catholics are those who not only insist on retaining Latin, but some go all the way to rejecting the modern popes (e.g. Sedevacantists).

And far from holding one set of doctrine and catechism, teachings in Romanism have evolved. After all, teachings have actually developed over time, even quite recently:

Veneration of angels and dead saints — 375 AD
Worship of Mary — 471 AD
Extreme unction — 526 AD
Purgatory first established in 593 AD
Invocation of saints — 600/700 AD
Kissing the pope’s feet — 707 AD
Image worship — 787/788 AD
Canonisation — 995 AD
Infallibility — 1086
Indulgences — 1190/1563
Confession — 1215
Transubstantiation — 1215
Supremacy — 1215
Half communion — 1415
Purgatory — 1438/1439
Seven sacraments — 1439/1547
Apocryphal books — 1547
Priestly intention — 1547
Venial sins — 1563
Sacrifice of the mass — 1563
Immaculate conception — 1834
Papal infallibility — 1870
Assumption of the Virgin Mary — 1950

Also, different Vulgates have been approved over time which differ in various passages. They are the Sistine, Clementine (with sub-catagories), Stuttgart and Nova Vulgata.

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Some people sincerely believe that although God avenges His people, and saves them when they cry to Him, that apparently the question about faith on the Earth implies a negative answer.

Is Jesus coming back when there will not be faith on the Earth? The Biblical answer is that there will be faith when Christ returns, because (after all) who is it that He is coming for?

There must be many saved people because the Gospel must go to the nations (see Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20). There must be many saved because Jesus said one will be taken and one left (which statistically is about 50% of the adult population). Also, the fact the knowledge of God should cover the Earth as the waters cover the sea would make for about 71% of the Earth’s total population (including children), since that is the percentage of water coverage on the Earth’s surface (see Habakkuk 2:14).

The Church, while on Earth, must grow up.

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Ephesians 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Australians are saying “no” to Islam. But saying “no” is not enough, without a proper basis for a counteractive idea. A person can use secularist and humanist principles to say “no” to Islam, but those ideas do not provide a real solution.

There have been calls to “reform” Islam (from a secularist basis). The best attack that secularism has against Islam is to attack the Koran. Here’s how:

1. There are different ante-Uthmanic versions of the Koran.
2. These were suppressed by Uthman, whose own edited standard version has had various textual variations.
3. The printing of the Koran in the 20th century required the editing of a standard text.

Secondly, secularist scholarship can then introduce questions about translation, and about interpretation. Thus, the secularist has the means of undermining Mohammedanism, and can make emotional pleas about how women are treated or how repressive Muslim society is.

The problem is that the secularist does not have a viable alternative that can either change the heart properly, or bring in true peace. The real solution is to have viable and properly taught Christianity as a witness, to convert people into the Biblical religion.

When a person believes in a jot and tittle accurate Bible, they believe that every spelling at every place is correct. If the Bible says “Immanuel” at one place (Isaiah 7:14), that cannot be substituted with something else, even though at another place we find “Emmanuel” (Matthew 1:23).

This is not an inconsistency at all. The reason for two different spellings is because in the Old Testament, it was written in Hebrew, and so that transliterates into English differently than going from Greek, in the New Testament, to English.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18).

Every place must be fully accurate, after all, it is God’s words we are dealing with in English, not just anyone’s subjective opinion.

“Civil war has erupted at the top of the Catholic Church, with 13 ­cardinals, including Australia’s George Pell, warning the Pope in a letter that the church is in ­danger of collapsing like liberal Protestant churches in the modern era.”

(The Australian, 14 Oct. 2015)

It is interesting to note that even the Romanists recognise the great damage that has occurred in Protestant churches as they have compromised with Modernism, Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology.

And what else should we expect from the two-horned lamb, which represents the Papacy in this time, and the conjoining of both conservative and liberal Catholics. One of the those two horns is a symbol for the compromise that Romanism and the Papacy have made with modern Infidelity.

“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” (Revelation 13:11).

Modern Infidelity can be linked with the German Jesuit-turned secularist, Adam Weishaupt (besides Descartes, Voltaire and the rest of the mob). Those ideas coming into the Jacobin Club in France helped the French Revolution, and the French Republic marched on Rome, took the Pope prisoner, and then, under Bonaparte, a Concordat was struck in 1801, which began the union of modern Infidelity and the Papacy.

So, the “warning” from a cardinal is hardly going to make a difference, the Roman Catholic religious system was already spiritually bankrupt, and now it cannot undo the bonds it has made with the secularising influence of modern Infidelity.

The only hope for any Roman Catholic to be free from the error of Modernism is to convert to the true and sincere Protestant faith. A genuine revival of the true and properly reformed Christian faith is going to be the answer to the constant ideological warfare conducted by left-wing anti-patriots like the Jesuit “Eureka Street” and other such enemies.

“And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:16, 17).

Sometimes there is “debate” between people like myself, who uphold that the King James Bible is perfect, and others, who deny this, but who support modern versions as superior.

One of them said about me:

“Matthew’s approach is complex, deeply thought through, and clearly he has spent a lot of time on it. But the one thing he cannot show, apart from torturing some verses into submission, is that his claims are actually taught by the bible. Could Matthew’s view be correct? Of course. But let’s not kid ourselves… His view is not correct because it’s somehow in the bible. I prefer to base my doctrine on the bible, and not on one man’s opinion.”

I have asked him and his fellow modern version users what is the Scriptural and Bible-doctrinal basis for their view of transmission.

Another modern version supporter (who in practice is very much against the King James Bible) told me:

“That’s because Scripture says nothing about transmission. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nadda. Nor should we expect it to. It only asserts that heaven and earth will pass away, but ‘my words will never pass away.’ Big difference.”

I replied: “So, all this time mocking KJBO, yet you have NO Scripture. You openly say that it says NOTHING about transmission?!?!? So, where do you derive your views on transmission then, if not from Scripture? Oh, yes, the influence of Enlightenment philosophy.”

Continue reading →