Conservative Catholic clerics begin to react to pope Francis’ approval of same-sex civil unions: “We have a bad pope.”

The conservative Catholic backlash to pope Francis’ call for civil unions of same-sex couples is just beginning. Watch this 7-minute video as a visibly emotional Catholic priest tells his congregation “we have a bad pope” (3:05 mark). The priest continues by saying he doesn’t know “what vanity, or dark spirits, or fallen inclinations” are guiding the pope.

A “bad pope”?

The foundation of Roman Catholicism is the pope, the alleged “Vicar of Christ.” What does it mean if the pope is a “bad pope” and is not to be followed? The foundation of Roman Catholicism crumbles.

There is another way, a better way. Jesus Christ declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” – John 14:6

Church membership doesn’t save. Trying to obey the Ten Commandments (impossible!) doesn’t save. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone and ask the Lord to lead you to an evangelical church that teaches the uncompromised Gospel.

Catholic vs Christian | “I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?”

BREAKING NEWS! Pope calls for civil unions for same-sex couples, in major departure from Vatican doctrine

I don’t normally publish two posts in one day, but this news cannot wait.

I was doing some routine work on the blog late this morning when I overheard on the television in the adjoining kitchen a special news announcement involving the “leader of the Catholic church.”

I scrambled into the kitchen to hear that Pope Francis is calling for civil unions for same-sex couples. This is ASTOUNDING, although not altogether surprising. The Vatican has been preparing for this moment for several years via the work of Jesuit priest, James Martin, its advance man for full acceptance of practicing LGBTers.

The ramifications and fallout from this “announcement” (underhandedly communicated via a docu-bio of Francis) are and will be ENORMOUS. This contradicts previous papal teaching on the illicitness/sinfulness of homosexual practices and same-sex unions/marriages that many/most serious Catholics held to be unchangeable and even infallible. Conservative and traditionalist Catholics will be enraged to a such a degree that many will now surely call for a formal split from pragmatically-progressive, world-pleasing, pope Francis.

I need to read some more reports on this development before I can comment at length. The bottom line is the Roman Catholic church does not teach the genuine Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Whether it’s Francis’s progressive camp, now publicly embracing same-sex unions, or the Catholic conservative camp, the genuine Gospel is not to be found in Roman Catholicism.

Pope calls for civil unions for same-sex couples, in major departure from Vatican doctrine

Update: I made it a point to listen to conservative Catholic talk-radio host, Al Kresta, at 4:00 p.m. today to get his take on Francis’s bombshell. As would be expected, Kresta tied himself up into multiple knots trying to downplay/minimize/mitigate/white wash the news. Kresta lamely postulated that, in approving civil unions for same-sex couples, Francis wasn’t necessarily sanctioning homosexual behavior. Kresta stumbled and stammered, suggesting the pope would expect civilly-united, same-sex Catholic couples to live as brother-brother or sister-sister. Say what?!?!? Kresta is living in fantasy land. He can’t yet admit to himself and his audience that his pope is a heretic according to Catholicism’s own tenets. But I think with this particular “reform,” Francis has finally given conservative Catholics, like Kresta, something they cannot glibly explain away.

Even our good deeds are like filthy rags, like showing off at church!

“We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.” – Isaiah 64:6

All of the world’s major religions teach that a person may merit Heaven/Paradise/Nirvana/Jannah by becoming increasingly good and moral. The exception is Biblical Christianity, which declares that everyone is a sinner and no one can merit salvation. Only by repenting (turning from rebellion against God) and accepting Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone can a person be saved.

The Bible says in Isaiah 64:6 that even our “good deeds” are tainted by sin and are as “filthy rags” in God’s sight. But how can that be?, people ask. I do A LOT of good things!, people object. However, even the “good” that we think we do is routinely motivated by sin. I can think of one humorous example.

My wife and I began attending a Gospel-preaching church right after we were saved back in the early-1980s. Things were done differently at church back then. Everyone brought their Bibles to church and we also used hymnals. These days, Scripture passages and CCM song lyrics are shown on the auditorium overhead, so many attendees leave their Bible at home (if they even have a hardbound Bible). But back then, everyone brought their Bible to church. If you showed up to church without a Bible, boy oh boy, you were judged to be spiritually lax or immature. Whoops, I’m already pointing out how our “goodnesses” are tainted and I haven’t even gotten to my example yet. Okay, let’s proceed.

Throughout the course of his thrice-weekly sermons, the pastor had us constantly picking through our Bibles. “Turn in your Bibles to…” was a regular instruction. When you’re a new believer, it’s very difficult to navigate through the Bible with its 66 books and odd sounding book names. Most new Christians had to resort to…argh…the index. But over time, the new believer became better acquainted with where all of the different books of the Bible were in conjunction with each other and could join in the race. The race? Every time the pastor called out the passage that we were to turn to, everybody in the congregation began flipping determinedly to the desired spot. Some cheaters had Bible tabs and automatically disqualified themselves. Those who got to the passage first gloated with pride. “Do I know my Bible or what,” they silently and self-satisfyingly beamed as others still noisily and frantically flipped through the pages of their Bibles. Nobody wanted to be last in the race, a sure sign to everyone around them that they did not know their Bible. Yup, I pridefully tried to win that race many times myself.

So even going to church and reading Scripture along with the pastor and the congregation involved a bit of prideful sin.

My “near-death” experience when I rode the Tilt-A-Whirl!

It’s interesting what childhood memories we retain. Our family lived about ten-miles from Seabreeze Amusement Park near the shores of Lake Ontario and we usually took a trip there once or twice each summer to enjoy the rides.

I started out with the slow-moving kiddie rides, but graduated to the more adventurous rides as I got older. One of the first grown-up rides I braved was the Tilt-A-Whirl. In that ride, a circular, segmented platform rotates over an “undulating” (i.e., having a smoothly rising and falling form or outline) track. Seven individual cars bolted to the platform each spins on its own circular track. As the platform rotates, the passengers in each car can shift their position to synchronize the motion of the car with the indulations of the moving platform to achieve a rapid, spinning motion.

On the occasion of my first time on the Tilt-A-Whirl, I nervously stood in line with my older sisters as we waited for our turn. The ride’s noisy, mechanical movements and the loud squeals of the passengers were thrilling as well as intimidating. We slowly advanced up the steps to the ride’s platform and when the attendant lifted the metal chain we scrambled to claim our car. We all grasped the handlebar as the platform began to turn. My sisters were “old hands” at this ride and began to shift their weight to sync the car’s rotation with the ups and downs of the moving platform. Before I knew what was happening, our car was spinning like a top! As the car spun faster and faster, I felt the increasing centrifugal force. It was scary, unlike anything I had ever experienced before. I hung onto the handlebar with a death grip, but felt my strength quickly ebbing. Why did I ever agree to go on this dangerous contraption?!?!?! I must have been a sight, like a frightened wild animal caught in a trap. One of my sisters could see my panic and leaned over and advised me to just relax and lean back into the padded wall of the car. Huh? I took her advice, loosening my death grip, and just went with the spin. Ah! Much better. This Tilt-A-Whirl experience was fun after all! Let’s go again!

Every once in awhile, I think about that moment when I had a panicky death-grip on the Tilt-A-Whirl handlebar and then relaxing and being able to enjoy what the ride was designed to do. There’s a spiritual analogy there about struggling to do things in my own power, and then surrendering to the Lord and His power and will. Ah, what a wonderful feeling it is to relinquish control, which I never really had in the first place, and submit to God. How about you? Are fretting and hanging on tightly, trying to control circumstances that are really outside of your control?

The Lord is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts, and I am helped; my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him.” – Psalms 28:7

When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears and delivers them out of all their troubles.” – Psalm 34:17

Postscript: The Tilt-A-Whirl was invented by Herbert Sellner back in 1926 in the basement of his Faribault, Minnesota home.

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 10/17/20

What to make of Mexican President, Andrew Manuel Lopez Obrador’s (photo left) demand this past week that pope Francis apologize on behalf of the Roman Catholic church for its role in the bloody Spanish Conquest of Mexico (1519-1521)? And what of the Native American protesters who toppled another statue of Franciscan friar and canonized “saint,” Junipero Serra (1713-1784), in San Rafael, Calif., on October 13th, Columbus Day aka Indigenous People’s Day (photo right)? I’m glad that the history of the Roman Catholic church is increasingly coming under the spotlight of scrutiny. Historical persecutions and abuses by the RCC were downplayed or denied for centuries behind a veneer of altruistic benevolence. Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have already apologized on behalf of past popes and prelates for many flagrant abuses, to the chagrin of Catholic apologists. On the other hand, believers know the Marxist Critical Race Theorists and BLMers who criticize the RCC have their own wicked agenda.

In three previous posts (see here, here, and here) we noted how the ordinations of two Catholic priests were recently deemed to have been “invalid” because the wrong baptismal incantation pronouns were used during their infant baptisms, which led to a lot of “remedial” clean-up within the dioceses affected. The fiasco was a good example of the inanity of Rome’s sacramental salvation system. The author of the article above, writing for a progressive Catholic periodical, also comments on the ridiculousness of Rome’s ritualistic scrupulosity as revealed by this controversy.

A New Orleans Catholic priest recently got caught in some dastardly behavior. However, I contend that the Roman Catholic mass that’s conducted 350,000 times daily around the world, whereby it’s claimed Jesus is turned into bread and wine and sacrificed for sins, is even more demonic than this crazy incident.

Writers such as the author of this article love to reference the anti-Catholic bigotry of 19th Century America, but omit any reference to the militant anti-Protestantism in Catholic-controlled countries at that time. Protestants in the U.S. were justifiably wary of Catholic influence and domination.

As we’ve discussed many times previously, Roman Catholics are obligated to attend mass every Sunday under threat of eternal damnation. When C-19 hit in mid-March, the U.S. Catholic bishops unilaterally issued “dispensations,” allowing the members of their dioceses to skip mass without incurring mortal sin. A month ago, as the C-19 numbers began to drop, some bishops began lifting the dispensations and ordering their members back to church. However, with the recent spikes in C-19 around the country, the bishops are reversing themselves and issuing dispensations once again. What a farce! Catholics are on a legalistic Yo-Yo.

Pro-liberation theology, pope Francis, has just released a new encyclical, “Fratelli tutti” (All brothers), which is a thinly-veiled critique of capitalism, and this conservative Catholic commentator doesn’t like it. Conservative Catholics are looking forward to a new pope, but there’s a good chance he’ll be another progressive like Francis. Either way, the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone is not proclaimed within the polarized RCC.

150 years after pope Pius IX had himself proclaimed infallible in major matters involving faith and morals at the First Vatican Council in 1870, only one doctrine has been officially defined as infallible, binding dogma: the alleged “assumption of Mary,” as defined by pope Pius XII in 1950. It’s all nonsense. What’s the point of having an infallible pope if they never go out on a limb and define anything as infallible?

Answering the rebuttals of a Catholic apologist, #44: “Doctrines of Demons”

Today, we continue with our series responding to “Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs” (2019), written by Karlo Broussard. This week, the Catholic apologist introduces his final section, which is devoted to topics involving “Catholic Life and Practice.” He begins with this chapter defending two of the RCC’s “disciplines” that Protestants describe as “Doctrines of Demons.”


Broussard points out that “Catholicism is well-known for its celibate clergy (see CCC 1599)…and for mandating periods of fasting and abstinence from certain foods at different times of the year” (see CCC 2043).

Protestants assert that Scripture specifically identifies these two “disciplines” as “doctrines of demons”:

“1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” – 1 Timothy 4:1-3 (NKJV)

Broussard attempts to rebut Protestant objections with three arguments:

(1) Broussard argues that Paul was not opposed to celibacy in an absolute sense because elsewhere in his epistles he recommends celibacy. See 1 Timothy 5:9-11, 2 Timothy 2:4, 1 Corinthians 7:8,32-38. Broussard then cites Matthew 19:11-12 to show that Jesus Himself approved of celibacy for some.

(2) Broussard cites 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 to show that Paul likewise was not absolutely opposed to fasting and abstinence.

(3) Broussard posits that 1 Timothy 4:1-3 only condemns the disallowance of marriage in general and the perpetual forbiddance of certain foods. He suggests Paul is possibly referring to the practices of the heretical Gnostics or to an unorthodox Jewish sect such as the Essenes. Broussard concludes that because the RCC doesn’t forbid marriage or certain foods in an absolute sense, Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 doesn’t apply to its disciplines.

Let’s now respond to Broussard.

(1) Yup, evangelicals certainly recognize Scripture teaches that some believers are gifted to serve the Lord as unmarried celibates.

(2) Yup, evangelicals certainly recognize Scripture does encourage fasting and also abstaining from foods sacrificed to idols if eating them would offend an overly scrupulous brother or sister.

(3) Broussard attempts to excuse the RCC from the condemnations of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 because it prohibits marriage only in a particular sense, affecting only priests and nuns, rather than in a general, absolutist sense. But is that a valid qualification? Scripture contradicts Rome’s particular prohibition of marriage for its clergy in its listings of qualifications for pastoral candidates: “the husband of one wife”1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Paul also noted that he had a right to be married as were Peter and the other apostles:

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? – 1 Corinthians 9:5

It’s revealing that Broussard omits the above Scripture passages which contradict Rome’s mandated clerical celibacy. Nor does Broussard comment on the absolute failure of Rome’s mandated clerical celibacy as demonstrated by revelation upon revelation of sexual abuse of children by celibate priests. By withholding this contradictory and unfavorable information from his readers, Broussard is guilty of underhanded duplicity.

With regards to the mandatory abstention of certain foods, Broussard plays the same particular vs. absolute card. Noting that Rome prohibits certain foods under threat of mortal sin only at particular times (e.g., meat on Lenten Fridays), he argues that it escapes the condemnation of 1 Timothy 4:1-3. But his qualification is painfully arbitrary and also defies supporting Scriptures, which state that the eating of certain foods is not sinful.

“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” – Matthew 15:11

It’s important that we address Rome’s errors regarding mandatory clerical celibacy and compulsory abstention of certain foods, but Rome’s most egregious error is its false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit.

Does the Bible teach the celibacy of priests?

Why can’t Catholics eat meat on Fridays during Lent?

Next up: “Call No Man Father”

Throwback Thursday: Spanish evangelicals remember persecution by Catholics

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on February 17, 2016 and has been revised.


Back in December 2015, I commented on how several journalists had used then-presidential candidate, Donald Trump’s controversial remarks suggesting the banning of Muslims from entering the U.S. to remind readers of anti-Catholicism in America in previous generations. I pointed out that the journalists conveniently reported only half of the story. Protestant Americans of past generations were well-aware of the persecution of non-Catholics in countries where Catholics held the majority. Popes and bishops reserved the “divine right” to suppress Protestants and their worship services wherever Catholics held sway and were able to gain the cooperation of the civil authorities. See my previous post on that topic here.

In the article below, Spanish evangelical Christians recall the persecution they suffered in Spain during the dictatorial regime (1939-1975) of faithful Roman Catholic, Francisco Franco (see photo of fascist Franco posing with Catholic prelates).

“…many Spanish Protestants were incarcerated, beginning with Franco’s victory and until the late sixties. Most of them were brought to the courts by Catholic priests. In 1965, Monroy recalls, private Protestant meetings to pray, sing and study the Bible were approved. But the meetings were only legal if there were less than 20 people. Christians were were fined and even incarcereted. In the public spaces, only Catholic ceremonies were allowed.”

But Protestants were also oppressed in many other Catholic countries during the 20th century including Salazar’s Portugal, Mussolini’s Italy, inter-war Poland, Vichy France, Pavelic’s Croatia, and in many Latin American countries where Catholic clerico-fascism ruled.

Some may respond, “Why bring this up now? It’s all water over the dam. The Catholic church is nowhere near as religiously and politically militant as it used to be.”

The Catholics who still bother to attend mass on Sunday are fed a saccharinized version of their church’s history. Why would anyone think it would be otherwise? But their church’s actual history defies all claims to Spirit-led, infallible leadership. That’s the moral of the story.


Spain, forty years after Franco’s death

Counterfeit Miracles

Counterfeit Miracles
By Benjamin B. Warfield
Kindle edition, 2014, 336 pp.
Originally published in 1918

I’m a “cessationist” in regards to the apostolic “sign gifts” of the Holy Spirit (prophecies, foreign languages, healings and raising from the dead, etc.). The cessationist view holds that those sign gifts were granted to the apostles to signify their authority and were gradually removed as the early church was established. There are Christians who are “continuationists” who believe the gifts of prophecy, languages, and healing are granted today. This Pentecostal/charismatic movement traces its roots back to Charles Parham and William J. Seymour and such events as the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in the early-1900s. I realize many genuine believers are part of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement, so I generally try to avoid debates on the topic, but I’ve been meaning to read this book for a couple of years and finally got around to it.

B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) was a notable theologian, a principal of Princeton Theological Seminary (Presbyterian) back when it was still orthodox, and also a cessationist. In this volume, Warfield examines some of the popular “miracle movements” that followed the apostolic era.

Warfield notes that by the time of Augustine (bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430), there were already claims throughout the church for extravagantly fanciful miracles that mimicked/adapted the outlandishness of pagan mythologies. The author labels these as “romantic” (i.e., quixotic, wild eyed – not sensible about practical matters; idealistic and unrealistic). The miracles recorded in the New Testament, which validated the authority of Jesus Christ and His apostles, were vastly different in nature than the fanciful tales being embraced by some of the early “church fathers.” Over the centuries, the Roman Catholic church would perpetuate and add to these miracle myths, which would be duly accepted by the credulous peasant faithful. Warfield focuses on the alleged miraculous cures at the Marian shrine at Lourdes, France as an example of this Roman credulity for the miraculous that was perpetuated despite the overall lack of verifiable evidence. Each year, five million pilgrims (pre-COVID-19) continue to make the trip to Lourdes, many hoping for a cure for their particular illness, only to return to their homes disappointed.

The author examines several other healing/miracle movements of his era that presaged or were contemporaneous with nascent Pentecostalism, including the Irvingites (see here), faith healing as propagated by Baptist minister, A.J. Gordon, who strongly influenced the founders of Pentecostalism (see here), the Emmanuel Movement (see here), and Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science movement (see here). What was common to all of these healing movements was that imperceivable illnesses were readily “cured,” while perceivable illnesses/diseases/deformities generally were not, which was always attributed to the supplicant’s “lack of faith.”

This book was very difficult to read (A) because of Warfield’s flowery, early-20th-Century prose, and (B) especially because the transcription of the printed text to ebook was extremely poor. I chose this Kindle version because of its cheap, 99-cent price tag, but I got what I paid for. I had to constantly guess at words because of the terribly bad mistranscription. But I’m glad I persevered. Warfield’s examination of Roman Catholicism’s adaptation of paganism’s “romantic” miraculous mythology is eye-opening. I would add that manifestations of miraculous phenomenon, e.g., healing, prophecy, speaking in ecstatic utterances, are also common among various non-Christian religions throughout the world today.

I appreciated this book for its examination of “miracle movements” prior to 20th century Pentecostalism, several of which I was unfamiliar with.

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 10/10/20

This past week, the Roman Catholic dioceses of Rockville Centre on Long Island and Camden, New Jersey became the 25th and 26th U.S. dioceses respectively to file for bankruptcy in an attempt to shield assets from victims of clerical sexual abuse.

Apologist, Ravi Zacarias, passed away on May 19th. Three ex-employees, all massage therapists, have come forward with accusations against Zacharias for improprieties at the two day-spas that he co-owned. An appeal to prurient interests? Nope, just a warning that no one is “above” anything.

The Duggars are independent fundamental Baptists. While reading this article, I could not help but recall my eight years at an IFB church where the motivator was guilt rather than joy in the Lord.

John MacArthur and Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA have continued to hold indoor worship services without any social distancing or PPE precautions despite a restraining order from a Los Angeles judge. MacArthur claims “there is no pandemic” and that the pandemic “deception” is being orchestrated by the “kingdom of darkness.” A trial is set for November 13th. Tomorrow, at the packed GCC, will JMac have a comment about the “imaginary” C-19 cluster outbreak at the White House that affected President Trump and nearly three-dozen other people to date? Meanwhile, after having defied public health safety guidelines, Pastor Jack Trieber and North Valley Baptist Church (IFB) in Santa Clara will acquiesce after accumulating $150K in fines.

Photo above: President Trump’s announcement of his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the SCOTUS on the White House lawn on September 26 was a C-19 “superspreader” event that has affected three-dozen people to date. Social distancing and the use of PPE were not followed.

Pope Francis is trying to renew the semi-secret 2018 Vatican-Beijing Accord, which allows the communist government a degree of direct control over RC churches in China in exchange for who knows what? Francis has been glaringly silent about human rights abuses in China over the past two years, a probable condition of the accord. U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, requested a meeting with the pontiff to discuss the dirty dealing, but Francis wants none of it.

Catholicism is rife with devotions to Mary, angels, and the saints, but missing is simple, saving faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

Two weeks ago, arch-conservative Catholic cardinal, Raymond Burke, proclaimed that Joe Biden was not a “Catholic in good standing” and should not be allowed communion, inferring that no Catholic should vote for him, either.

Answering the rebuttals of a Catholic apologist, #43: “A Thousand-Year Reign”

Today, we continue with our series responding to “Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs” (2019), written by Karlo Broussard. With this next chapter, the Catholic apologist completes his “The Last Things” section as he attempts to counter the belief in “A Thousand-Year Reign” held by some Protestants.


Many evangelical Christians believe in a literal, thousand-year, millennial reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth following His second coming based upon the text of Revelation 20:

“…They will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” – Revelation 20:6

Catholicism does not teach premillennialism, the literal, thousand-year reign of Christ. The RCC subscribes to the amillennial view, which teaches that there will not be a literal thousand-year reign. Broussard offers two arguments to defend the Catholic position:

(1) Broussard suggests that the “thousand years” referred to in Revelation 20 is strictly symbolic. He presents examples of Bible verses where the number 1000 is used symbolically such as in Psalm 50:10 and 1 Chronicles 16:15 and argues a symbolic interpretation is also intended for Revelation 20.

(2) Broussard argues that “the contextual details (of Rev. 20) suggest that the thousand years overlaps with the ministry of Jesus and the Church age” (p. 231). The details Broussard cites are those that describe Satan as being “bound.” Broussard argues that Satan was bound during Jesus’s earthly ministry and is bound now, during the Church age, so that he cannot hinder the preaching of the gospel as Christ builds His Church.

Let’s now respond to Broussard.

Evangelicals are divided over the three views connected with millenarianism:

Premillennialism – the belief that Jesus Christ will return and set up a literal 1000-year reign upon Earth.*

Postmillennialism – the belief that the preaching of the Gospel and the increasing conversion of souls over a period of time symbolized by the “1000-years” in Rev. 20 will usher in the return of Jesus Christ. This view was once overridingly popular among mainline Protestant denominations, but it’s not even a consideration for them any longer in this era of mainline Protestant apostasy.

Amillennialism – the belief that there will not be a literal 1000-year reign, but that Christ currently reigns on Earth through the church and His followers.

As a new Christian, I was discipled at a Gospel-preaching church that taught the pre-trib rapture and the pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I’m comfortable with those views, but I know many genuine Christians believe differently. I’m definitely not passionate when it comes to eschatology, so I generally keep my endtimes beliefs to myself. Some Christians do have strongly-held views on the endtimes. Debates on the topic, some quite heated, can be found all over the internet.

Here’s the most important takeaway from this chapter for me: Catholic apologist Broussard is quibbling over details of endtimes eschatology, while his church teaches a false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit. It’s like being on an airliner flying eight miles above the ground and arguing with the stewardess about the cabin temperature while one of the plane’s engines is visibly aflame. Let’s keep our focus on the “first things.” Broussard defends his church’s amillennialist view, claiming that Satan is bound while the RCC advances its works-righteousness gospel. Does not compute. Satan is VERY pleased that the RCC teaches anti-Biblical, works-righteousness salvation. I would suggest, as did all of the Reformers, that Satan played/plays a part in the creation and perpetuation of the RC false church. But why does the Catholic apologist quibble about endtimes details when the RCC officially teaches that people of all religions – Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., and even atheists – all of whom generally have NO CLUE regarding the difference between premillennialism and amillennialism – may also merit their salvation if they are “good” and sincerely “follow the light they are given”?

What is millenarianism?

*Premillennialism is further divided into Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. See here.

Next up: “Doctrines of Demons”