What if the Antichrist has changed the definition of SIN?

31.AUG.07

EDITOR: I am pleased for the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by SALT in a letter captioned ‘Mr. Rogers huffing, puffing’ in your Friday, August 24, issue.

SALT asked a very good question, ‘does the Anti-Christ, spirit or otherwise, encourage faith in Christ and avoidance of Sin?’{{more}}

I wish to ask SALT this question, ‘What if the Antichrist has changed the definition of SIN?’

The Scriptures clearly tell us, “…SIN is the transgression of the LAW.” [1 John 3:4]

Bible Definition: SIN is the transgression of YAHWEH’s Law.

But, the Antichrist power would “…think to change times and LAWS…” [Daniel 7:25]

So here’s the problem, SALT. If the Antichrist power has CHANGED the LAW, and SIN is the TRANSGRESSION of the Law, how would you AVOID SIN?

Maybe I need to be more specific.

The Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments reads, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath…

Thou shalt not BOW DOWN thyself to them…” [Exodus 20:4-5]

The GWT version puts it this way, “Never make your own carved idols or statues that represent any creature in the sky, on the earth… Never worship them…”

Notice, SALT, what YAHWEH has said. DO NOT MAKE and BOW DOWN to – ANY carved idols or statues.

And remember, SALT, transgression of this Law is SIN.

Now the papacy tells us, “The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols… The honor paid to sacred images is a ‘respectful veneration,’ not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.” [Article 2132, ‘Cathechism of the Catholic Church’]

Notice, SALT, the papacy ADMITS that ‘veneration’ is ‘Religious worship’!

I repeat, RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. Yet, in the same breath, the papacy tells us it is NOT SIN to make a carved image to Mary and worship, sorry, ‘venerate’ her.

What do you think, SALT? Is it possible to keep the papal Commandments, yet, avoid SIN?

I know you’d say that there were carved images in the Old Testament Temple, and mention the brazen serpent, but I challenge you to show us where Yahweh said that we should ‘venerate’ those images.

Here is another example of the papacy ‘encouraging avoidance of SIN’ on one side of its mouth, yet changing the definition of SIN on the other side of its mouth.

We read, “Have no fear when people call me the ‘Vicar of Christ,’ when they say to me ‘HOLY FATHER’ or ‘Your Holiness,’ or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel.

Christ Himself declared, ‘Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called Master; you have but one Master, the Messiah’ (Matthew 23:9, 10). These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage. One must not be afraid of these words either.” [Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994)]

Here, a pope admits to SALT that ALL the blasphemous titles he holds are inimical to the Gospel. Inimical, that is, ‘unfriendly, hostile, antagonistic’ to the Gospel!

He even quotes the scripture to show that it is the case! Then what does he do? Yep, that’s right, he changes the Law and redefines SIN!

So now, it is OK to transgress the expressed Commandment of Jesus, and ‘not be afraid of these words either!’

Wow! SALT, I see why you would want to defend the papacy. It appears they are more powerful than Jesus.

SALT finds it hilarious that Jesus should be speaking of Himself in Matthew 16:18. I guess SALT would find it side-splitting when he/she reads, “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But He spake of the temple of His body.” [John 2:19, 21]

The same way that Jesus said ‘Upon THIS Rock…’, He said ‘Destroy THIS Temple!’ In both cases, He was speaking of HIMSELF. Positively uproarious, according to SALT.

SALT gives a wonderful explanation of how Peter left his wife and the Bishops of Rome must be celibate because they have to travel to Darfur and Jamaican Ghettos.

Maybe it doesn’t matter to SALT that PAUL said, “A BISHOP then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,…” [1 Timothy 3:1-2]

The scriptures allow Bishops to marry, but the papacy forbids them.

And further, the Apostles went into a lot more dangerous places than Darfur and Jamaican Ghettos, yet PAUL being single, asked, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, A WIFE, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and CEPHAS?” [1 Corinthians 9:5]

Here’s the ISV rendition, “We have the right to take a believing wife with us like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas, don’t we?”

Yes, SALT, the other apostles and CEPHAS had wives who accompanied them.

Cephas, if you didn’t know, is PETER.

SALT questions my source for the papal notion of Salvation through Mary. For an encyclical quote, go to www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9ubipr2.htm

Read Paragraph 5.

When you write again, SALT, ask about Peter being a ‘pope’.

Maurice Rogers